Oxnard City Council
December 6, 2022

October 19, 2022
Via Email and Federal Express
Jay Dobrowalski
Senior Planner
City of Oxnard Planning Division
214 South C Street
Oxnard, CA 93030
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Comments on The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Port of Hueneme – Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage Facility Project (#2020069039) and PZ 18-500- 02 (Special Use Permit)
Dear Mr. Dobrowalski:

We are in receipt of the Planning Department’s Final Environmental Report, and respond here with comments submitted by Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy (CAUSE), Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthjustice and the Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation. We submit the documents listed below on the enclosed thumb drive via FedEx, and available through this OneDrive link 4527 - Port of Hueneme Comments - Sources Shared on October 19 2022* via email. These documents contain key references cited in our comments, which we ask you to consider in conducting your review and include in the administrative record associated with this matter.

1. Attachment 1: Dobrowalski July 13th Email
This email is from Mr. Jay Dobrowalski, the Senior Planner for the City of Oxnard Planning Division, acknowledging receipt of our February comment letter, and noting that the letter and all supporting documents would be entered into the record.

2. Attachment 2: Commenters’ October 11, 2022 Errata Request This email is from Commenters requesting an erratum after realizing the supporting documents had not been entered into the record as part of the FEIR documentation.

3. Attachment 3: Previous Comment Letters and Attachments February 14, 2022 Initial Comment Letter (and attachments) and July 1, 2022 Supplemental Comment Letter (and attachments).
* The following email addresses have access to this folder: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. Please email Radhika Kannan at [email protected] or Fernando Gaytan at [email protected] if there are any access issues. 344

4. Attachment 4: SWAPE Reply Report and Supportive Document

5. Attachment 5: Dr. Smallwood Reply Letter and Supportive Documents

6. Attachment 6: 2022 Automotive Logistics News Article on Electric CarCarrier Trucks Sincerely,
Radhika Kannan
Fernando Gaytan
Earthjustice
Natalia Ospina
Heather Kryczka
Natural Resources Defense Counsel
Lucia Marquez
Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy (CAUSE) Mati Waiya
Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation
345

October 19, 2022
Via Email and Federal Express
Jay Dobrowalski
Senior Planner
City of Oxnard Planning Division
214 South C Street
Oxnard, CA 93030
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Comments on The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Port of Hueneme – Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage Facility Project (#2020069039) and PZ 18-500- 02 (Special Use Permit)
Dear Mr. Dobrowalski:

We submit these comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) for the Port of Hueneme – Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage Facility Project (“Project”) on behalf of the Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy (“CAUSE”), Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense Council (“NRDC”), and Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation (“Wishtoyo”).

The FEIR fails to address several fundamental deficiencies in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) that commenters had previously identified. Despite the submission of over 200 comments on the DEIR, the City of Oxnard Planning Division (“OPD” or “City”) has only made minor revisions to its analysis in finalizing the FEIR. 1 Even when confronted with
new knowledge, facts, and expertise, including record evidence from the Oxnard Harbor District’s (“OHD” or the “Port”) internal documents, the City has refused to reevaluate its mistaken analysis. Consequently, the FEIR is legally deficient and unfit for certification under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

I. The Record Must Include Commenters’ Submitted Evidence on July 1, 2022 Following the close of the public comment period for the DEIR in February 2022, commenters became aware of new evidence through documents produced in response to a Public Records Act request to the OHD. These documents contained substantial relevant information for decisionmakers to be aware of ahead of deciding whether to approve this proposal.

Furthermore, on March 21, 2022, the City hosted a Virtual Community Workshop with presentations from the OHD discussing its plans for the 34-acre Vehicle Storage Site currently under review. At the conclusion of the Virtual Community Workshop, OPD invited additional 1 Final Environmental Impact Report, Port of Hueneme – Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage Facility Project, SCH No. 2020069039 (Sept. 2022) (hereinafter “FEIR”).
346

written comments from the public concerning the proposed Project and the presentation by the Port. In line with this invitation, and to ensure that the Commissioners and other decisionmakers were provided with information necessary to make an informed decision, commenters submitted supplemental comments on July 1, 2022, in addition to the comments submitted on February 14, 2022.

The City of Oxnard Planning Division has acknowledged receipt and noted that the letter and all supporting documents would be entered into the record. The confirmation email is attached hereto as Attachment 1, Dobrowalski July 13, 2022 Email. Although the July 1 letter appears in Attachment F of the Staff Report (along with other letters submitted after February 14, 2022), the supporting evidence does not. When commenters realized that the supporting documents had not been entered into the record as part of the FEIR documentation, commenters sent an email to Mr. Dobrowalski requesting an erratum. This request is attached hereto as Attachment 2, Commenters’ October 11, 2022 Errata Request. This erratum has not been filed.

As Planning Commissioners are tasked with deciding whether to approve this controversial project, they should have access to the entire record. In an abundance of caution, we are attaching the July 1, 2022 letter, as well as the February 14th letter, and all supporting documents to each of these comments as Attachment 3, Previous Comment Letters and Attachments.

Commenters request that the Commissioners strongly consider both the July 1, 2022, supplemental letter, and all supporting evidence in deciding this permit. We realize that this is a significant amount of information to review in a short amount of time which is also why we previously asked for the Commission’s decision to be delayed for 30 days until the Commissioners have had an opportunity to hear from the public and have full access to the entire record in this considerable matter.

II. The FEIR Fails to Adequately Respond to Comments
When comments raise significant environmental issues through expert declarations or evidence-based assertions, the FEIR’s response must provide a reasoned, good-faith analysis and “describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised.”2 Comments must be “addressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted.”3 Detailed responses are required to “ensure that the lead agency will fully consider the environmental consequences of a decision before it is made.”4 Generally, the level of detail in the response must match the level of detail in the comment.5 “[C]onclusory statements unsupported by factual information” are never an adequate response.6 Yet, such conclusory statements are precisely what the City has proffered in its FEIR.

Firstly, other than the Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”) analysis, the City has not made any substantive changes to the DEIR. Mere editorial changes do not rise to the level of fully engaging with public comments. Secondly, and more egregiously, while commenters have 2 Cal.Code Regs., tit.14, §15088(c). 3 Id.
4 City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 889, 904. 5 Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1552, 1568. 6 Cal.Code Regs., tit.14, §15088(c); City of Maywood v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 362, 391.
347

provided detailed explanations including several citations to documents produced by the OHD, the City’s response to these detailed and well-supported objections has been to overwhelmingly refer commenters to “Global Responses.” See e.g., FEIR Comment Response 206-15; 206-24 (the response containing nothing more than “Please refer to Global Response GR-3, Relation of Project to the Multimodal Logistics Park and Global Response GR-8, Cumulative Projects.”) At the same time, no additional details can be found in these Global Responses. These Global Responses do not grapple with OHD’s emails, grant applications, internal memos and other logical inconsistencies pointed out by the commenters. This failure to engage extends to most responses to the comments.

As such, the City has failed in its CEQA obligation to provide detailed reasoning for why commenters’ suggestions were not accepted. Overall, the City has not shown a good faith effort to consider public input.

III. The FEIR Improperly Piecemeals the Analysis of the Whole Project and Fails to Analyze the Impacts of Important Project Components
The FEIR’s flawed Project Description violates the fundamental goal of CEQA, which is to provide complete and accurate information about the environmental impacts of a proposed project before it is approved. The City claims that the design of the Project is meant to “[r]educe and consolidate, where feasible, Port vehicle customer reliance on off-Port satellite storage locations, which would reduce the need for car carrier truck movement to distribute vehicles to those locations.”7 The FEIR also notes in the Project Description that the 34-acre outdoor vehicle storage facility is meant to be temporary – for a maximum of 5 years.8 Yet, the FEIR misstates the true scope of the 34-acre site, leading to an incorrect analysis regarding the design of the Project.

A. The FEIR Misstates and Improperly Rewrites CEQA Requirements The FEIR attempts to re-write the CEQA process for what must be considered in the Project Description.

The law requires that an EIR must include an analysis of the environmental effects of future expansions or other actions when: a) a project is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project; and b) the future expansion or action is significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects.9 “[T]he environmental review accompanying the first discretionary approval must evaluate the impacts of the ultimate development authorized by that approval. … Even though further discretionary approvals may be required before development can occur, the agency’s environmental review must extend to the development envisioned by the initial approvals. It is irrelevant that the 7 FEIR, Section 3.5, p. 3-15. 8 FEIR, Section 3.6, p. 3-15. 9 Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of Univ. of California 47 Cal. 3d 367, 396 (1988), as modified on denial of reh’g (Jan. 26, 1989).
348

development may not receive all necessary entitlements or may not be built. Piecemeal environmental review that ignores the environmental impacts of the end result will not be permitted.”10 CEQA mandates “that environmental considerations do not become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones – each with a minimal potential impact on the environment – which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences.”11 The FEIR’s failure to recognize the 250-acre site stems from its erroneous interpretation of CEQA requirements. The FEIR claims that the 250-site does not need to be integrated in this project description and no environmental analysis needs to be conducted because: (1) “the City of Oxnard has not received an application for proposed development of a 250-acre site” 12; and (2) a 250-acre parcel would require annexation which would be subject to future environmental review.
13 Whether a project is a “reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project” does not depend upon whether the City has received an application for it or whether that project might trigger additional CEQA review. Indeed, such a requirement is nowhere to be found in the City’s or the State’s CEQA Guidelines. The City cites to no authority for these “requirements” for which projects need to be included in its project description.14 These additional elements are created out of whole cloth by the City to avoid re-writing the project description to include what is clearly a foreseeable project. As described above, the City cannot use the fact that the entitlement will be subject to further environmental review as an excuse to avoid integrating the extension in its analysis currently.

B. The FEIR’s Conclusions Regarding the 250-Acre Site Are Not Supported By Substantial Evidence.

The City concludes that because “the future development of a 250-acre site is unspecified and uncertain, the City has determined that potential future development of a 250-acre site is not reasonably foreseeable and is speculative.”15 However, this conclusion flies in the face of the wealth of documents presented to the City demonstrating how the City was well aware of the depth of the planning for the 250-acre site.

As commenters have highlighted in their previous letters, several documents from the Port (including new documents released in response to commenters’ Public Records Act request) indicate that beginning in 2018, the Port has started drafting conceptual plans, pursuing financial arrangements with customers, hiring consultants related to the project, considering the 250-acre project for grants, and designating the site as an Opportunity Zone.16 Yet, in response, the FEIR 10 See Kostka, et al., Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act, § 6.52, p. 298. 11 Bozung v. LAFCO, 13 Cal.3d 263, 283-84 (1975); City of Santee v. County of San Diego, 214 Cal.App.3d 1438, 1452 (1989).
12 FEIR, Section 12.4.2, p. 12-9. 13 Id. 14 Id. 15 Id. 16 Attachment 3, February Comment letter, pp. 9-11 (hereinafter “Commenters’ February Letter”); see also Attachment 3, July Comment Letter, pp. 4-5 (hereinafter “Commenters’ July Letter”). 349

Global Responses makes no effort to address these documents. The City’s response is entirely inadequate.

First, the FEIR selectively ignores evidence that the Port has coordinated with the City a more permanent solution to the auto storage issue through the 250-acre site. The Port produced a document titled “Collaboration Call with City of Oxnard” with the goal of “Partnership for Economic Development.”17 The document has an “ongoing deadline” and is supplemented with information about the 250-acre site, including grant applications and the inclusion of the 250- acre site in census tracks as an Opportunity Zone.18 Furthermore, a flyer published by both the City of Oxnard and the Port indicates that “[t]he stop gap 34-acre measure … will ensure that the City of Oxnard and the PoH will have sufficient time to structure and meet all regulatory requirements for the longer term 250-acre port logistics park with access to rail.”19 Thus, the City was well aware that the 250-acre site was a reasonably foreseeable extension of the 34-acre site.

Second, the Global Response to Comments regarding piecemealing the 250-acre site, is primarily devoted to explaining how the 250-acre Multimodal Logistics Park site “was conceptual at the time of the Notice of Preparation and is one possible concept for potential future development” (emphasis added).20 But the Port’s communications to landowners, the Memoranda of Understanding (“MOU”) and Letters of Intent (“LOI”) between GLOVIS and the Port, and the funding applications demonstrate that concrete steps have indeed been taken to bring the project into fruition and render the 250-acre site very far from merely “conceptual.”21 Third, the FEIR’s Project Description fails to consider the timescale of the Project. It makes no sense to assume, as the FEIR does, that given the serious land deficits (over 300-acres) the Port is facing, that there will be no further land use planned for automobile storage once the five-year temporary site expires.22 The FEIR summarily dismisses these land deficits by referring commenters to its superficial Global Responses. 23 This is not substantial evidence to
support a conclusion that the 250-acre site is speculative. By postponing review of this component, the FEIR improperly bifurcates the project in violation of CEQA, and in doing so, severely underestimates the impact on human health and the environment. 17 Commenters’ July Letter, p. 8 (citing OHD, Collaboration Call with City of Oxnard at p. 2). 18 Id. (Commenters also noted that “Private investments made within this zone will expect return on their investment over a period of time. This strongly suggests that an increased movement of cars and other goods through this corridor was reasonably foreseeable.”) 19 Commenters’ July Letter, p. 8 (citing City of Oxnard & The Port of Hueneme: Partners in Economic Development, Flyer Re: Ensuring the commercial viability of a major Ventura County Economic Engine - The Port of Hueneme (PoH) - for a better tomorrow at the City of Oxnard.) 20 FEIR, Section 12.4.2, Global Response 3, p. 493. 21 Commenters’ July Letter, pp. 6-8 (citing Email between Dona T. Lacayo and GLOVIS USA (Nov. 7, 2019), Email between Dona T. Lacayo and GLOVIS USA (Aug. 20, 2019), Email between Dona T. Lacayo and GLOVIS USA (Sept. 2019); Memorandum of Understanding, Oxnard Harbor District (March 3, 2020); Email from Kristin Decas to Commissioners, Subject Weekly Update (Oct. 16, 2020); OHD, Collaboration Call with City of Oxnard at p.2 (Ongoing)).
22 Commenters’ February Letter, p. 9; Commenters’ July Letter, p. 9 (citing Oxnard & POH Commercial Viability Report, p.1. PROD-PHCN0000828). 23 FEIR, Section 12.5, Response to Comment Letter #206, Response No. 206-15, p. 12-1162. 350

IV. The FEIR’s Project Description is Inaccurate and Misleading and Impedes Meaningful Public Review
As stated in prior comments, the City has disingenuously omitted analysis of the broader Port logistics expansion that this Project represents. The City has strained to create a project description that artificially limits the scope of the Project to the 34-acre site, despite substantial evidence demonstrating a much broader plan to increase storage capacity in the region, including at the 250-acre Multimodal Logistics Center. In doing so, the City has produced a FEIR with a flawed project description under CEQA that contradicts its own objectives and fails to offer the Planning Commission the information necessary to properly assess the impacts of this project.

This is discussed further in Section V.

The City simply ignores the multiple comments submitted concerning the inadequacy of the project description itself—more specifically, the incompatibility of the Project’s objectives with the alleged “temporary” nature of the storage site.24 One of the key objectives listed for this Project is to “reduce and consolidate” reliance on off-port satellite storage locations.25 Yet, the City maintains that the project will be temporary, stating: “[t]he project proposes a temporary outdoor vehicle storage facility (vehicle storage facility or facility) for a maximum of 5 years on the approximately 34-acre project site. Future expansion of Port facilities based on the project is speculative at this time.”26 The FEIR fails to reconcile this inherent conflict nor explain how the Project, allegedly limited to a maximum of 5 years, will actually result in the consolidation of existing sites to meet the Project’s objectives.

As we stated in our July 1, 2022 comment letter, the City has failed to explain how the Project will be both “temporary” and fulfill its objectives to consolidate off-port storage.27 There are no details, for example, for how the site will be transitioned post-Project but continue to serve the consolidation objective and meet the Port’s known need for more land to accommodate its expansion.28 Moreover, if this project is truly temporary, it would fail to satisfy the stated objectives—making Alternative One: No Project/No Build by far the environmentally superior alternative29 that the City should adopt. The rejection of this alternative in the FEIR is based on deficient and incomplete analysis.

The inadequacy of the project description means that the Planning Commission is being called to make a decision “in the dark”—without the necessary information to fully appreciate the full scope of this Project or its impact. The approval actions before the Commission, therefore, involve much more than a straightforward EIR approval. Here, Planning 24 See Commenters’ July Letter 25 FEIR, Section 3.5, p. 3-15. 26 FEIR, Section 12.5, Response to Comment Letter #206, Response No. 206-20, p. 12-1163. 27 Commenters’ July Letter, pp. 9-10. 28 Id. 29 The FEIR also identified Alternative Two: Two Existing Off-Port Vehicle Storage Locations as the environmentally superior option among the Project alternatives. FEIR, Section 6.9.4, pp. 6-16. This conclusion is as flawed as the rejection of the No Project/No Build alternative, as the analysis of this alternative is not only incomplete, but also fails to incorporate feasible mitigation measures to address air quality impacts, such as the implementation of zero-emission technology. See Commenters’ February Letter, p 69; FEIR, Section 6.7, pp. 6-5 to 6-10.
351

Commissioners are not simply being asked whether to certify the FEIR and approve a Special Use Permit for a single project. Despite how the Planning Division has decided to reframe this project as a “Temporary” Vehicle Storage Facility to make it seem benign, this Project sets the stage for an unprecedented expansion of Port activities into the very neighborhoods that have already borne the brunt of air pollution, traffic, noise, and lack of greenspace and coastal access.

This is not simply a storage lot; it will hasten the expansion of commercial and industrial activity in the region— an expansion for which we do not know the true extent of environmental impact.

Because of these flaws in the project description, the FEIR remains inadequate as an informational document and precludes meaningful public review. It should therefore be rejected in its current form and recirculated for further public review if revised to fix these discrepancies.

V. The FEIR Fails to Consider a Reasonable Range of Alternatives and Improperly Rejects Existing Alternatives
A major function of an EIR is the lead agency’s full assessment of a reasonable range of alternatives stemming from a well-prepared project description and statement of objectives. 30 However, where a project description is inadequate or overly narrow—as in the case here—the alternatives analysis risks being equally flawed. As discussed at more length in commenters’ February and July letters,31 the project objectives are narrowly tailored in a way that facilitates the City’s improper rejection of alternatives that could offer substantial environmental advantages and avoid worsening air quality and further concentrating industrial uses and harms adjacent to an over-burdened residential neighborhood, while still meeting most project objectives. As a result, the FEIR contains a flawed and incomplete analysis of feasible alternatives and fails as an informational document that facilitates meaningful public engagement. It, therefore, cannot be certified.

The FEIR fails to address the deficiencies in the DEIR’s alternatives analysis. First, the lack of detail provided in the EIR prevents a meaningful public review and a reasonable choice of alternatives.32 For instance, it is impossible to know based on the limited discussion and lack of detailed information provided in the EIR whether there are no feasible alternative sites for car storage that would meet most of the stated objectives.33 Lead agencies are required to disclose in their EIR their reasons for concluding that no feasible alternative locations exist.34 However, the City’s failure to consider the Navy Base Ventura County (“Navy”) property as an alternative site 30 Cal. Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; Cal.Code Regs., tit.14, § 15124(b); Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v.

Regents of the Univ. of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400; In re Bay-Delta etc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1163, citing Cal.Code Regs., tit.14, § 15124(b).
31 Commenters’ February Letter, pp. 68-83; Commenters’ July Letter, p. 15. 32 See Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Com. v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 274, 287 (“Absolute perfection is not required; what is required is the production of information sufficient to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned.”)
33 FEIR, Section 1.5, pp. 1-11 to 1-12. 34 Cal.Code Regs., tit.14, § 15126.6(f)(2)(B); see also Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 405, as modified on denial of reh'g (Jan. 26, 1989) (“Those alternatives and the reasons they were rejected, however, must be discussed in the EIR in sufficient detail to enable meaningful participation and criticism by the public.” (citations omitted)). 352

in the EIR and to instead address its feasibility solely in a General Response, violates CEQA and is further evidence of the FEIR’s failings as an informational document.

Second, the FEIR continues to apply circular logic to reject alternatives for not lessening project impacts. By failing to carry out the full analysis required under CEQA, the FEIR underestimates the Project impacts. As a result, it comes to the incorrect conclusion that the project would not result in significant or unavoidable impacts and therefore the City has no obligation to consider alternatives. However, as discussed at length in this and other comments, there is substantial evidence that the project will have significant impacts on the environment and public health.

Third, the FEIR improperly conflates the City’s jurisdiction with feasibility. Alternatives cannot be rejected simply because they are beyond the lead agency’s authority.35 And yet, the City relies on this argument to avoid even considering alternatives raised by commenters. For instance, the City relies on the 34-acre property being privately-owned to conclude that a park alternative is infeasible.36 Similarly, the City refuses to consider the Navy property37 as a feasible alternative in part because it does not have jurisdiction over Navy property.38 This ignores the definition of feasibility under CEQA39 and fails to address the central question of whether the OHD as the project proponent has reasonable access, ownership, or control over alternative sites.
40 In the case of the Navy property alternative, the close relationship between the OHD and the Navy evidenced by a 2021 Joint Use Agreement demonstrates that it is a viable alternative worth considering. Nevertheless, this goes undiscussed in the FEIR. The City should apply the CEQA definition of feasibility and fully evaluate all reasonable alternative locations41, including the Navy property.
35 See Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Com. v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 274, 286–287 (“[I]t is not appropriate to disregard alternatives simply because the alternative may be beyond the scope of expertise of the agency or because the alternative may require implementing legislation since CEQA was intended to provide a basis for consideration and choice by all branches of government.”) 36 FEIR, Section 12.4.2, p. 12-15. 37 It is disingenuous for the City to claim it is not informed about the Joint Use Agreement between the Navy and the Port given the coverage the agreement received in the local press. See, e.g., Commenters’ February Letter, p. 71 (citing Brian J. Varela, Port of Hueneme, Navy Partner to Assist Los Angeles County Port Backlog, Ventura County Star, November 28, 2021, 10:40 a.m.; https://www.vcstar.com/story/news/2021/11/28/port-hueneme-assist-lacounty-ports-through-agreement-navy/8771397002/). 38 FEIR, Section 12.4.2, p. 12-15. 39 CEQA Guidelines define feasibility as capable of “being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors. Cal.Code Regs., tit.14, § 15364. 40 Cal.Code Regs., tit.14, § 15126.6(f)(1). See, e.g., Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Com. v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 274, 288 (finding that an alternative to develop a university athletic stadium jointly with the city was properly rejected based on a prohibition to spend funds on a non-university stadium and the city’s documented lack of interest in a joint stadium project). 41 Another such alternative site could include prioritizing the on-dock parking structure for which the OHD has sought federal funding over the past several years, which is intended to store over 7,000 vehicles. Commenters’ February Letter, p. 71 (citing Oxnard Harbor District, Economic-Environment Partnership, Slide presentation (undated), Slides 29 and 30); see also https://maritime.dot.gov/PIDPgrants. While not all information about this proposal is public, it is apparent that it is not speculative; the Port has hired consultants to study this parking 353

Finally, the FEIR once again ignores the current availability of zero-emission technology42 and GLOVIS’ role as a leading regional maker of heavy-duty Class 8 zeroemission trucks in its rejection of the Electric Car Carrier Truck Alternative. During public meetings and in public statements, the OHD frequently highlights its alleged commitment to a zero-emission transition, and yet when an opportunity arrives to make a clear commitment that investment is not even considered or analyzed. In order to begin to address the air quality impacts from the Port on the surrounding community, the OHD must invest in a zero-emission transition and establish near-term milestones to achieve that vision, such as the use of zeroemission car-carriers. In their expert reply to the FEIR, Matt Hagemann and Dr. Paul E.

Rosenfeld identify several mitigation measures related to zero-emission technology that the City should consider and evaluate to address air quality impacts from the Project.43 Due to deficiencies described above and in previous letters, the EIR contains an inadequate discussion of project alternatives in violation of CEQA.

VI. Mitigation Measures Offered in FEIR Continue to be Inadequate Under CEQA, a public agency cannot approve a project if there are “feasible mitigation measures which substantially lessen the significant environmental effects” of the project.44 Any potential mitigation measure must be at least partially effective in reducing the significance of the impacts at issue.
45 The FEIR fails to offer mitigation measures that meet this standard. Since the FEIR does not evaluate the full scope of the Project due to an overly narrow project description and project objectives, it fails to analyze, much less address, the significant impacts that would result from the Project. Given that most mitigation measures in the FEIR went unaltered,
46 those measures continue to be inadequate and will not substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the full scope of the Project.

Moreover, the few updates made to mitigation measures for biological resources and cultural and tribal resources in the FEIR continue to fall short of addressing the impacts from the Project. For instance, the addition of a preconstruction wildlife survey to the biological resource mitigation measures will be insufficient in detecting special status species, as discussed in detail by Dr. Shawn Smallwood.
47 As a result, the FEIR’s mitigation measures are deficient, and new measures must be considered following a complete evaluation of the Project’s full impacts. structure proposal. Commenters’ July Letter, p. 13 (citing Oxnard Harbor District, Professional Services Agreement (May 26, 2021); and Oxnard Harbor District Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy at p. 50 (2021)). 42 Commenters’ February Letter, pp. 71-83; Commenters’ July Letter, p. 15. There are companies working on developing zero-emissions Class 6-8 car carrier trucks and a commitment by the OHD to order and use these carriers could drive additional investments in this type of technology. See Namrita Chow, Electric car carriers promise to pack a punch, Automotive Logistics, access Oct. 17, 2022 at 4:52pm, https://www.automotivelogistics.media/finished-vehicle-logistics/electric-car-carriers-promise-to-pack-apunch/42868.article, attached hereto as Attachment 6. 43 Attachment 4, SWAPE Report, pp. 12-13 (hereinafter “SWAPE report”). 44 Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21002. 45 Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, (2018) 431 P.3d 1151,1166. 46 Commenters’ February Letter, pp. 63-67. 47 See Attachment 5, Smallwood Reply Letter (Oct. 18, 2022), pp.8-9 (hereinafter “Smallwood Reply Letter”). 354

VII. The FEIR Inadequately addresses the Cumulative Impacts The FEIR’s flawed cumulative analysis violates CEQA. The City claims that Table 4-1 lists all projects that could contribute to considerable cumulative impacts.48 The FEIR also acknowledges various Port projects that are in development, including the 250-acre Multimodal Logistics Park, channel deepening, berth widening, on-dock expansions, expansion of rail lines, the Structure for Transfer of Automobiles Creating Key Economic Development (STACKED) Project, off-Port Cargo storage yards and overall expansion of Port Operations, the INVEST Project, the BUILD Project, and the Port Intermodal Corridor (Hueneme Modernization Project).49 Yet, the FEIR fails to include relevant projects in its cumulative analysis.

A. The FEIR Misstates and Improperly Rewrites CEQA Requirements for Cumulative Impacts
The FEIR attempts to re-write the CEQA process for what must be considered in a cumulative impact analysis.

The City admits that CEQA requires that the FEIR address cumulative impacts.50 Cumulative impacts are those that result from “the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts.”51 The incremental effects of an individual project “are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”52 Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.53 A relatively “small” impact is not insignificant under CEQA if it contributes to an existing environmental problem.54
The City also admits CEQA requires a cumulative impact analysis to contain, at minimum, either 1) a list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects, including those projects outside the agency’s control that produce related or cumulative impacts55 or 2) a summary of such projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document 48 FEIR, Section 4.2, p. 4-2. 49 FEIR, Section 12.4.2, pp. 12-17 to 12-18. 50 FEIR, Section 4.1, p. 4-1; Cal.Code Regs., tit.14, § 15130; see also Cal.Code Regs.,tit.14, § 15355 51 Cal.Code Regs., tit.14, § 15130(a)(1). 52 Id. at § 15065(a)(3). 53 Id. at § 15355(b) (The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time). 54 “[A] project’s cumulative environmental impact cannot be deemed insignificant solely because its individual contribution to an existing environmental problem is relatively small.” See, San Francisco Baykeeper, Inc. v. State Lands Comm’n (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 202, 223. “In fact, ‘the greater the existing environmental problems are, the lower the threshold should be for treating a project's contribution to cumulative impacts as significant.’” Id. (quoting Cmtys for a Better Env’t v. Cal. Res. Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 120). 55 FEIR, Section 4.1, p. 4-1; CEQA suggests that agencies consider factors such as the nature of the environmental resource examined, location of project, and type. Cal. Code Regs., tit.14, § 15130(b)(2). 355

that evaluates regional or areawide conditions.56 The cumulative impacts analysis of this Project continues to remain flawed.

As with the Project Description, the FEIR’s failure to include several projects in its cumulative impacts analysis stems from its erroneous understanding of the CEQA requirements.

The FEIR claims that several pertinent projects need not be considered in its list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects because (1) “each cumulative development project represented in Table 4-1 was “determined to be reasonably foreseeable by the City based on applications that the City received at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Draft EIR was released (June 25, 2020)”57; and (2) the City does not consider conceptual long-range projects under the jurisdiction of another lead agency to be reasonably foreseeable.58 Commenters address each of these excuses in turn. First, whether a project is a “reasonably anticipated” does not turn on whether the City has received an application for it.

Indeed, such a requirement is nowhere to be found in the City’s or the State’s CEQA guidelines.

Because this element is not required under law, it should not factor into which projects are listed.

Second, as plainly stated in the law, the agency must consider any project that can reasonably have cumulative impacts even if “those projects [are] outside the agency’s control.” Thus, the legal excuses provided by the City do not pass muster.

B. The FEIR’s Conclusions Regarding the Projects Included in the Cumulative Analysis Are Not Supported by Substantial Evidence
The City cites to three different reasons why the projects commenters list should not be considered: (1) that some cumulative impacts are speculative; (2) they are not within the proposed geographic zone; and (3) despite proposed increases in passageways for rail and freight traffic, this project doesn’t change capacity requirements.59 These objections are unfounded.

First, commenters have pointed to several projects that could impact the area surrounding the 34-acre site with supporting evidence demonstrating why they are not speculative. For example, the proposed widening of Hueneme Road to four lanes included in the Roads and Transportation Five-Year Capital Improvement Program; how the Port has invested in a new rail line with GLOVIS; and the capital investments to deepen berths to accommodate larger capacity vessels.60 The City makes no effort to engage with the wealth of evidence of these substantial 56 Id. at § 15130(b)(1). 57 FEIR, Section 12.4.2, p. 12-17. 58 Id., at p. 12-18. 59 Id., at pp. 12-17 to 12-18. 60 Commenters’ February letter at pp. 19-20 (citing INFRA FY19: Multimodal Optimization & Vehicle Efficiency Project Summary, PROD-00002504; INFRA FY20 Application Project Summary; 2020 OHD Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, PHCN0002370; 2020 OHD Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, PROD-PHCN0002353; INFRA FY19 Multimodal Optimization & Vehicle Efficiency Project, PRODPHCN00005158; OHD Board of Commissioners Meeting Agenda- September 11, 2017-Press Report Attachment, PROD-00002699; The Hueneme Modernization Project BCA Appendix - March 17 2021, PROD-0004367; The Hueneme Modernization Project INFRA Grant Application FY2021, PROD-0003201; Ventura County Freight Corridor Study, (October 2021), Prepared by Iteris, Inc., on behalf of Southern California Council of Governments, The Port of Hueneme, Caltrans and Ventura County Transportation Commission at 36, PROD-PHCN0001900- 2126).
356

plans. The record evidence demonstrates that concrete steps have been taken to bring the listed projects into fruition and disprove the City’s conclusion that these projects are “speculative.”61 Second, commenters have provided figures for the proposed developments including a figure showing the relative locations of the 34-acre site to the 250-acre site, a figure showing the relative position of the STACKED project (on the North Terminal), and another showing the traffic pathways and the potential widening of Hueneme Road.62 The City’s response to these relevant images has been to claim that these images “do[] not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section or analysis of the Draft EIR.”63 At the same time, the City notes that the cumulative impacts are only assessed in the geographic area “bound by Bard Road to the north; Ormond Lagoon Waterway/Edison Drive to the east; the Pacific Ocean to the south; and Ventura Road and other areas within the City of Port Hueneme to the west, but not within the Port of Hueneme or Naval Base Ventura County (“Navy”) Port Hueneme.”64 As described above, the City cannot shirk its duty to review cumulative impacts just because a project may be in another agency’s control. Thus, delineating a line for any project “within the Port of Hueneme” is legally void, particularly given how the Port is viewing its many expansion projects as interconnected and in furtherance of their stated goal of expanding throughput. Furthermore, the lines drawn at Bard Road, Ventura Road, and Edison Drive are internally inconsistent. For example, the City addresses air quality concerns arising from Port operations and agricultural use which are outside these boundaries.65 The City also extends the VMT analysis to Camarillo Airport and Tuff shed – both of which are outside these arbitrary lines.66 The City cannot cherry pick instances in which to apply these arbitrary boundaries in a self-serving manner. The City cites to no authority for setting these specific limitations. At the very least, the city must explain why it chose these boundaries as supported by substantial evidence e.g., scientific studies indicate that emissions from facilities do not travel beyond “X” miles. In summary, these geographic boundaries are arbitrary and not supported by substantial evidence.

Even within these arbitrary boundaries that the City has set, several projects listed have at least some portion of their operations within this geographic region. The City cannot dismiss all these projects as outside the geographic area without taking a hard look at the impacts that portions of these proposed projects will likely have.

Third, the City admits that the “project would result in less trucking and more rail on/off moves compared to existing conditions” yet, the City concludes that it doesn’t need to conduct a cumulative impact analysis because “the City has not received an application for a new rail project.”67 Similarly, in response to commenters noting that there are berth widening and 61 FEIR, Section 12.5, Responses to Comment Letter #206, Response Nos. 206-35 to 206-38, pp. 12-1164 to 12- 1165.
62 See FEIR, Section 12.5, Responses to Comment Letter #206, Response No. 206-17, p. 12-1162; Response No. 206-25, FEIR p. 12-1163; and Response No. 206-38, FEIR p. 12-1165. 63 Id. 64 FEIR, Section 12.4.2, pp. 12-17 to 12-18. 65 FEIR, Section 5.33, p. 5.3-8. 66 FEIR, Section 12.4.1, p. 12-13 67 FEIR, Section 12.5, Responses to Comment Letter #206, Response 206-23, p. 12-1163. 357

dredging projects that would increase shipping traffic, the City concludes that new cars stored at the vehicle storage facility would not require additional ships.68 Even assuming that the temporary 34-acre site will neither facilitate an increase in goods movement by ship nor rail nor truck in the area (a fact that commenters do not concede), the fact that all three pathways propose to be extended in this exact area reflect, without a question, significant impacts. Simply, the City fundamentally and mistakenly conflates these points in the FEIR and leaves the Planning Commission and the public with an incomplete cumulative impacts analysis.

Finally, even with the projects that have been listed in Table 4-1, the City undertakes no analysis of how the listed projects will impact the area surrounding the 34-acre site – including but not limited to additional emissions that might result and how that could impact vulnerable populations.69 In summary, the EIR’s cumulative impacts analysis remains deficient such that the FEIR cannot be certified.

VIII. The FEIR Fails to Consider Environmental Justice Impacts and Violates CEQA The temporary 34-acre storage site is located next to low-income, densely populated neighborhoods in south Oxnard. As commenters note in their February letter, a Report prepared by the California Office of Attorney General (“OAG”), provisions of CEQA, and Government Code Section 11135 require lead agencies to study the environmental justice impacts of projects and to mitigate those impacts.70 Part of the discussion in the FEIR must include an evaluation of the location of the project because the significance of an impact on people and the environment may change based on the project’s setting.71 Commenters pointed to studies demonstrating how California communities of color and low-income communities bear a disproportionate burden of the state’s diesel trucking emissions.72 Commenters also highlighted that the nearest school is only 780 feet from the Project site and the proposed Project would also be located as close as 360 feet from residences located to the northwest, north, and northeast of the Project site.73 To these points, the City’s response has been to point the public to Global Response No. 5 on environmental justice impacts. 74 This response is insufficient. Although the City admits that the proposed Project would “result in a minor increase in vehicle traffic…[due to] worker vehicle trips, delivery of heavy-duty equipment and materials, and haul trips,” it nevertheless concludes “impacts would be less than significant on sensitive receptors.” This conclusion is based entirely on the assertion that the project site is “not located in an area with poor circulation or heavy traffic.” The City points to no study supporting its circulation finding and proffers no 68 FEIR, Section 12.5, Responses to Comment Letter #206, Response 206-21, p. 12-1163. 69 FEIR, Section 4.2, Table 4-1, p. 4-2. 70 FEIR, Section 12.5, Responses to Comment Letter #206, Response 206-180 to 206-182, p. 12-1189 (citing the Office of the California Attorney General, Environmental Justice at the Local and Regional Level (2012), p. 3, available at https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/ej_fact_sheet.pdf). 71 Id. 72 FEIR, Section 12.5, Responses to Comment Letter #206, Response No. 206-183, p.12-1189 (citing Union of Concerned Scientists, Inequitable Exposure to Air Pollution from Vehicles in California, fact sheet (Feb. 2019), available at https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2019/02/cv-air-pollution-CA-web.pdf.) 73 FEIR, Section 12.5, Responses to Comment Letter #206, Response No. 206-185, p. 12-1190 (citing DEIR, p. 5.3- 9)
74 FEIR, Section 12.4.2, p. 12-11
358

evidence in support of the traffic patterns. In fact, with the additional projects described above, it would seem that the City has conveniently omitted several projects in the pipeline that would increase traffic and emission patterns.

Commenters appreciate that the City has added language responding to commenters’ concerns associated with nearby power plants, superfund site, and factories.75 The City summarily concludes that the “distance between the project” and these sites would not create a significant hazard to the public.76 However, the City fails to provide the underlying data, study, or processes used to come to this determination. Neither the Commissioners nor the public should accept conclusions that have not been properly substantiated – especially where the health and safety of vulnerable populations and overburdened communities are at stake.

IX. The City has Failed to Address Deficiencies in Language Access, Which has Further Frustrated Meaningful Public Review of the EIR Documents The City claims that it is under no obligation under State law (CEQA or otherwise) to translate environmental review documents into Spanish or any other language.77 This response completely ignores comments previously submitted highlighting the fact that limiting public access violates a core tenet of CEQA78 – that “the public holds a ‘privileged position’ in the CEQA process ‘based on a belief that citizens can make important contributions to environmental protection and on notions of democratic decision making.’”79 While the City acknowledges that CEQA, “deems public participation and comment during any environmental review process as an essential part of the CEQA process,” it has done very little to offer document translation or interpretation. In fact, according to the FEIR’s response to comments, only the Port has offered the minimal language access services in the form of a Spanish-translated Executive Summary from the DEIR, and “a video in Mixteco explaining the contents of the Draft EIR.”80
Under the California Bilingual Services Act, State agencies must distribute applicable translated written materials if the State agency “serves a substantial number of non-Englishspeaking persons” and “[t]he information solicited, required, or furnished affects or may affect the individual’s rights, duties, or privileges with regard to that agency’s services or benefits.” Although, as local agencies, the City and Port are not directly subject to this rule, refusing to translate environmental documents restricts limited or non-English speaking individuals’ ability and right to meaningfully participate in environmental decisions that impact their health and safety. Given the importance of this Project to the many residents for whom English is not a primary language, we reiterate our call to translate the EIR and make it accessible by recirculation in order to ensure meaningful public review. 75 Id. 76 Id. 77 FEIR, Section 12.4.2, p.12-9. 78 See Commenters’ July Letter. 79 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15201 (1992). 80 FEIR, Section 12.4.2, p.12-9. 359

X. The FEIR’s Vehicle Miles Travelled Analysis Remains Woefully Inadequate and Does Not Support a Finding of No Significant Traffic of VMT Impacts The City admits that neither it, nor the City of Port Hueneme have adopted guidelines or significant criteria for assessing VMT by development projects81 — a requirement under California Public Resources Code §21099 and 14 Cal. Code Regs § 156064.3 (CEQA Guidelines). Rather than directly responding to our comments highlighting the need for a more robust VMT analysis for the Project, the FEIR points to the same conclusory and vague explanation in its Global Response No. 6 to justify not doing more to provide the Planning Commission and the public with sufficient information to appreciate the full scope of traffic impacts. The FEIR’s conclusion that no VMT impacts would result from the Project is unsupported by what little analysis is offered for three key reasons.

First, the FEIR’s application of Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s (“OPR”) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts (“Technical Advisory”) is flawed. The FEIR fails to adopt any specific methodology or criteria for its evaluation of the Project’s VMT that would make its conclusions verifiable based on OPR’s guidance. It inappropriately adopts a screening threshold when no such threshold applies to this Project and it misapplies the qualitative analysis outlined in the Technical Advisory. The FEIR’s conclusions that no VMT or traffic impacts are present are therefore unreliable.

The FEIR contends that the qualitative analysis approach outlined in OPR’s Technical Advisory is the appropriate evaluation for the Project’s VMT impact.82 It also summarily adopts the DEIR’s conclusion that no VMT impacts would result from the implementation of the Project without showing how the qualitative analysis approach was specifically applied in this case. The City admits based on the screening thresholds outlined in OPR’s Technical Advisory — which apply to residential, office, retail projects, land use plans, and transportation projects — that this project would not “screen out”83, i.e., that further analysis would be required even under a qualitative approach. Yet, the FEIR reaches the conclusion that “the project would lead to a lessthan-significant transportation impact” using the same retail threshold it admits is inapplicable.84 The Technical Advisory does recommend, however, that “[a]gencies should consider whether their actions encourage development in a less travel-efficient location by limiting development in travel-efficient locations.”85 No such data-supported analysis was provided in this FEIR.

Second, the FEIR’s analysis on VMT and traffic impacts is conclusory and relies on contradictory assumptions. For example, in its assessment of alleged VMT reductions, the City assumes the elimination of two existing vehicle storage facilities to conclude overall VMT reduction while at the same time defending the DEIR’s analysis of the traffic effect of the Project 81 FEIR, Section 12.4.2, p.12-13. 82 Id. 83 Id. 84 Id. 85 California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts on CEQA (OPR Technical Advisory) (December 2018), p. 17; available at:
https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf 360

“under existing and cumulative conditions, with due consideration of other related projects in the area.”86 These inconsistencies lead to self-serving conclusions that simply cannot be relied on.87 If current conditions are assumed, then VMT analysis would have to account for the higher VMT that the Project would produce as a result of having the approximately 240 daily trips made in individual cars (according to one estimate provided), compared to the more limited car carrier truck trips making the haul to the furthest existing site. Even using that simplistic comparison, which we do not concede qualifies as a VMT threshold under either the Technical Advisory or CEQA guidelines, the Project would still generate more vehicle miles travelled on its own as compared to the furthest existing site.88 The FEIR attempts to avoid dealing with this increase in VMT by attempting to shoehorn a threshold analysis for new retail facilities that is inapplicable to the Project.

Third, the FEIR ignores evidence submitted showing that the traffic report that underlies much of the City’s environmental review was merely rubber stamped and created in a way to offer cover for predetermined conclusions. It therefore cannot be relied upon to conclude that no impacts will result from the project.

As commenters pointed out in their July 1, 2022 comment letter to the City, documents made available in response to Public Records Act requests suggest that there was never any intention on the part of the Port applicant or the City to vet the real traffic impacts of the 34-acre site. In fact, emails between Port staff and a land-use planning specialist suggest that the City might forgo a traffic report altogether by providing a letter, noting, “the City just needs a paper trail - this way they can cover themselves with a letter from a professional.”89 In subsequent emails, the hired consultant confirmed that they would prepare the trip generation analysis based solely on the Project Description and a Design letter90— without considering the requirements outlined in CEQA guidelines or the recommendations found in the Ventura County Freight Corridors Study. These revelations, which the FEIR neglects to address, cast further doubt on the reliability of calculations, information, and analysis used to support the FEIR ‘s conclusion that no significant traffic or VMT-related impacts will occur.

Given the cursory manner in which the traffic study and VMT analysis were conducted, it is unsurprising that the FEIR is replete with inconsistencies and contradictions that call into question its reliability as an informational document. We call on the Planning Commission to reject this FEIR. Moreover, the City should fix its lack of baseline methodologies and thresholds for assessing the impact of VMT from this Project. Until these errors are corrected, the FEIR fails to meet basic standards under CEQA.
86 FEIR, Section 12.5, Responses to Comment Letter #206, Response 206-51, pp. 12-1166 to 12-1167. 87 Note: the FEIR does not address the inconsistent assumptions highlighted in our February 14, 2022 comment letter wherein we highlight that in order to switch to an analysis that would presume the elimination of two existing sites, the agency must first justify this decision by showing that the existing conditions are somehow misleading or without informational value. No such analysis has been done in the FEIR. See Commenters’ February Letter, p. 25. 88 See id., at pp. 24-25. 89 Commenters’ July Letter (citing emails between Dona T. Lacayo and Kevin Waldron at p. 2 of 8 (Aug. 2018). 90 Id. (citing emails between Dona T. Lacayo and Darryl F. Nelson at p. 1 of 11 (Aug. 2018). 361

XI. The FEIR Continues to Rely on Flawed Air Emissions Modeling, Lacks the Requisite Health Impact Analysis, and Fails to Properly Assess Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

The FEIR fails to justify its modelling used to calculate greenhouse gas emissions (“GHG”) and air quality impacts and continues to lack the necessary analysis on health impacts. These flaws were originally outlined in a findings report submitted by experts Matt Hagemann and Dr.

Paul Rosenfeld and incorporated into commenters’ February 14, 2022 letter. 91 Hagemann and
Rosenfeld have reviewed the FEIR and responses to those comments and have concluded that many of the justifications used by the City for their approach to air emissions, health hazards, and GHG emissions remain fundamentally flawed.92 Several of these flaws in the FEIR are outlined below:
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials – The FEIR fails to address the lack of a Phase I ESA analysis, despite being a key element called for in the City of Oxnard 2030 General Plan Safety and Hazards Chapter. More specifically, the FEIR does not explain why Policy H7.12, which requires a hazardous materials study for any new development, was not followed.
• Air Quality and CalEEMod Model - The FEIR again fails to provide access to, or justify the use of, the underlying data inputs used to calculate the Project’s emissions. More specifically, the FEIR refers to “applicant provided” information for its inputs on the length of construction for the site, yet the underlying data, and the justification for using it, are not made publicly available in the documents attached to the FEIR. This makes it impossible to verify whether the changes to defaults accurately reflect the proposed construction schedule.

Despite the City’s claims that relying on “applicant provided” information is sufficient, CalEEMod requires that information used to change defaults be supported by substantial evidence as required under CEQA.93 The calculations, therefore, remain unreliable and the City must either justify these modifications with substantial evidence or revise its calculations. Similarly, the FEIR’s modeling concerning construction activities is flawed as the FEIR arbitrarily modified construction lengths based on different phases of development – potentially underestimating peak daily emissions. Similarly, the FEIR fails to provide substantial evidence for changing off-road construction equipment amounts therefore making it challenging, if not impossible, to verify if these changes are accurate. • Greenhouse Gas Emissions – The conclusion that GHG impacts are “less-than-significant” relies on the same incorrect and unsubstantiated air modelling described above. Moreover, the FEIR relies on outdated thresholds which the City fails to justify through substantial evidence. This has resulted in the FEIR failing to identify any potentially significant GHG impact from the project.
91 See Letter from Matt Hagemann and Dr. Paul E. Rosenfeld to Fernando Gaytan (February 9, 2022), Attachment A to Commenters’ February Letter. 92 See Letter from Matt Hagemann and Dr. Paul E. Rosenfeld to Fernando Gaytan (October 17, 2022), attached hereto as Attachment 4, SWAPE Report. 93 See SWAPE Report. 362

This flawed analysis of air pollution impacts also extends to the FEIR’s treatment of the necessary mitigation and health impacts associated with it. In concluding that the project will not reach the thresholds set by Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (“VCAPCD”), the FEIR relies on an arbitrarily restrictive view of the Project without accounting for the inconsistencies between the Project Description and Objectives and ample evidence demonstrating that this project encompasses more than the 34-acres described and for longer than five years. This arbitrarily restrictive scope is also used by the City to claim that the Project will not pass emissions thresholds set by the VCAPCD94 and to justify its refusal to conduct the type of Health Impact Assessment required under the California Supreme Court case, FriantRanch.

In short, the FEIR’s conclusion misses the mark. While CEQA may not mandate an indepth risk assessment outright:
“CEQA requires that the EIR have made a reasonable effort to discuss relevant specifics regarding the connection between two segments of information already contained in the EIR, the general health effects associated with a particular pollutant and the estimated amount of that pollutant the project will likely produce.”95
Because the FEIR fails to address flaws in its modeling, its estimation of the pollutants generated by the Project is unreliable. Moreover, the narrow and cursory analysis that the FEIR does offer on air pollutants and potential health impacts, is unverifiable given the lack of access to the underlying data. This foundational information is necessary for informed decision-making and public participation. The City, therefore, cannot support its conclusion that the Project falls under the VCAQCD’s thresholds. Even so, the FEIR misinterprets Friant-Ranch wherein the California Supreme Court found that CEQA requires analysis correlating increased air emissions to probable resulting human health effects.6 The City cannot claim that no emissions will result from this Project just as it cannot avoid the necessary health impact analysis required under Friant-Ranch by simply stating that emissions will not surpass thresholds it has arbitrarily chosen to apply.

As further highlighted in Hagemann and Rosenfeld’s review and commenters’ letters, the FEIR also fails to address the following:
• Diesel Particulate Matter emissions – The City fails to include a health impact of using equipment producing diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions during a construction phase of the Project slated to last over 180 to 200 days and its justification for not doing so is not supported by the evidence. More specifically, as the Hagemann and Rosenfeld report points out, “until both the Project’s construction and operational health risks are quantified, summed together, and compared to the VCAPCD threshold of 10 in one million, the 94 SWAPE Report, pp. 5-6. 95 Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 521 363

FEIR’s response is inadequate” and does not evaluate the Project’s potential health risk impacts.
• Comprehensive assessment of Toxic Air Contaminants – The FEIR fails to provide a “good faith reasoned analysis” of the health effects of any increase in Toxic Air Contaminants caused by the Project, including those that result from the combustion of diesel and gasoline engines associated with the entire car storage complex, the 34-acre and the 250-acre sites, increased Port-related emissions due to augmented cargo throughput, and construction related to the aforementioned projects. • Encroachment of Port-Related Activities – The FEIR also fails to adequately address comments concerning the shift in port-activity emissions towards south Oxnard populations adjacent to the Port-serving freight corridors like Hueneme Road.

In short, the FEIR ignores critical flaws in its analysis and inadequate data verification that call into question its reliability as an informational document for environmental assessment. The law requires that the public and the Planning Commission have an accurate assessment of potential health risks and air quality impacts – which this FEIR fails to deliver.

XII. FEIR Continues to Underestimate Impacts on Special Status Species, Habitats, and Wildlife Movement
The City failed to provide good-faith, reasoned responses to the comments raised regarding the DEIR’s biological impacts analysis.96 Instead, the City offered partial responses and conclusionary statements that ignores large swaths of commenters’ concerns and failed to make significant changes to its analysis to ensure the full scope of direct, indirect, and cumulative biological impacts from the Project are evaluated by the FEIR. Therefore the FEIR’s conclusions that there will not be a significant impact on biological resources from the Project remains unsupported by substantial evidence.

In its responses, the City avoided addressing the full concerns raised in the expert report prepared by Dr. Shawn Smallwood that determined that significantly more special status species likely rely on the property for habitat, foraging, hunting, mating, or other needs.97 The FEIR dismisses this evidence entirely and continues instead to rely on flawed reconnaissance surveys that failed to observe or detect special status species. 98 Further, Dr. Smallwood identified flaws
in the additional assessment attached to the FEIR as Appendix FA. 99 In fact, he explains that the
databases relied upon by the FEIR show bird species using nearby sites with similar levels of disturbance as the Project site, which undermines the FEIR’s conclusion that the Project site cannot be habitat to special status species.100 The FEIR’s over-reliance on inadequate analysis and surveys means it grossly underestimates the special status species that may use the site and the value of this Project property as important habitat. Eliminating 34-acres of habitat (regardless 96 These comments are laid out in significant detail in Commenters’ February Letter, at pp. 39-46 (citing Smallwood report).
97 Commenters’ February Letter, at pp. 39-42. 98 See Commenters’ February Letter, at pp. 40-41 (citing Smallwood report); Smallwood Reply Letter (Oct. 18, 2022), at pp. 3-5. 99 Smallwood Reply Letter (Oct. 18, 2022), at pp. 4-5, 15. 100 Smallwood Reply Letter (Oct. 18, 2022), at p. 8. 364

of whether it is used for breeding or wintering) would result in a significant impact on special status species, thereby meeting the City’s threshold of significance for a biological resources impact.

The slight update to the proposed mitigation measures is not sufficient to lessen the impact below the threshold level of significance. As was raised in previous comments, an additional pre-construction survey is unlikely to detect species that are notoriously difficult to detect in surveys, such as the burrowing owl.101 Moreover, the fact that there may be a detectable presence of a special status species at the time of the pre-construction survey does not change the fact that after five years of intensive use as a parking lot this habitat will be, at best, unavailable during that period and at worst irreparably damaged or destroyed. 102
The City’s refusal to acknowledge the value of this property to wildlife extends to its alternative analysis as well. The FEIR concludes that using the 34-acre site as open space would not lessen the significant impacts from the Project, but that is based on an erroneous conclusion that building a parking lot on un-developed property would not impact special status species or wildlife movement, which is not supported by substantial evidence. 103
Commenters incorporate by reference all points raised in Dr. Smallwood’s October 18, 2022 reply letter.

XIII. The FEIR must be Recirculated Before Project Approval and Certification Under CEQA, an EIR must be re-circulated for review and comment whenever significant new information becomes known to the lead agency and is added to the EIR, after public notice of the availability of the draft document has been made, and before the EIR is certified.104 Under such circumstances the lead agency is specifically required to re-notice the environmental review document to the public and all responsible agencies, and is required to obtain comments from the same, before certifying the document’s impacts and alternatives analyses as well as any mitigation measures.105 A lead agency’s decision not to recirculate an EIR must be supported by substantial evidence.106
“Significant new information” includes any information regarding changes in the environmental setting of the project under review.107 It also includes information or data that has been added to the EIR and is considered “significant” because it deviates from that which was presented in the draft document, depriving the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a significant environmental effect of the project, or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect at the time of circulation of the draft.108 Recirculation is further required where the 101 Smallwood Reply Letter (Oct. 18, 2022), at pp. 8-9. 102 See id., at p. 9. 103 FEIR, Section 12.4.2, p. 12-16. 104 Pub. Res. Code § 21092.1 105 See id.; see also, Pub. Res. Code § 21153. 106 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15088.5(e) 107 Id., at § 15088.5(a). 108 Id. 365

draft EIR is “so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.”109 While re-circulation is an exception and not the rule in the preparation of final environmental review documents, it is an exception that must be invoked here – where the absence of significant information rendered the DEIR ineffective in meeting CEQA’s substantive mandates, and now, where included, the addition of significant new information substantially changes the FEIR’s analyses and conclusions regarding the Project’s impacts, feasible alternatives and required mitigation.110
As stated in numerous comments to the DEIR, that document failed to provide critical information regarding the duration, scope, and mitigation of the Project’s impacts; it failed to adequately describe fundamental information relating to the phasing and timing of the project’s implementation and phase out by claiming to add permanent jobs to the region; it lacked adequate detail specifically regarding the construction and operations phases of the Project, including mitigation; and it contained analyses and mitigation measures relating to the Project’s air quality, traffic, human health and biological resources impacts based on incorrect datasets and formulas.

In some instances, the FEIR erratically and arbitrarily includes selective new data into its analysis of the Project’s impacts, and in others critical information remains absent from the document.

The FEIR contains significant new information and must be recirculated for public review and comment before being considered by the Planning Commission.111 Although this new information does not cure the inadequacies pointed out in comments to the DEIR, the City has added new information that that the public should be allowed to thoroughly review and evaluate with sufficient opportunity to further comment prior to a decision by the Planning Commission. This new information includes, but is not limited to: a revision of Mitigation Measure MM-BIO01 related to biological resources; the addition of land use policies to be considered pertaining to aesthetics; different data on maximum daily construction emissions and maximum daily operational emissions; the addition of a new 2022 California Native Diversity database search performed and new analysis performed resulting from a revised habitat assessment concerning biological resources; alleged revisions to the analysis and evaluation of archaeological resources and mitigation measures proposed as MM-CUL-1 and MM-CUL-2; alleged revisions to the analysis of project impacts and mitigation measures under Tribal Cultural Resources; a new listing of potential hazardous sites; a new summary of significant unavoidable impacts not previously disclosed; remodeling of the project in CalEEMod used for the project to project emissions during construction and operation; and, a list of additional previously undisclosed alternative locations considered by the City. In addition, Appendix D, Air Quality 109 Id. 110 Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 Ca4th 1112, 1132. 111 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, §15088.5. 366

and Greenhouse Gas Study and Appendix FA – Biological Resources Inventory 2022 were updated with new information previously not disclosed.

The FEIR also contains new references to the storage of electric vehicles at the site without any details as to whether these vehicles will require charging infrastructure at the site while the cars are being stored.112 Thus, it is unclear whether further alterations to the site will be necessary in the near future. In short, this new information adds greater uncertainty and highlights the document’s failure as an informational document.

The public must have an adequate opportunity to comment on these many changes and address any new impacts this new information may reveal. Providing just 10 days before a hearing with the Planning Commission does not provide that opportunity for meaningful public engagement concerning the new information contained in the FEIR. Given these revisions, the myriad other information, and alternative analysis added in the FEIR, recirculation is required.

Moreover, on March 21, 2022, our organizations requested that the City schedule a special meeting of the Planning Commission before deciding on whether to approve the Project113. Not only would this give the Commission an opportunity to hear from stakeholders and members of the public and provide for adequate language access, but it would also give the Commission time to review additional evidence that has become available after the comment period. Given the tremendous interest that this Project has garnered with over 200 written comments received, setting a special pre-determination hearing before the Commission is more than appropriate.

The City released its responses to our comments less than ten full days prior to the October 20, 2022 hearing.114 To provide Commissioners with the opportunity to thoroughly review all the evidence, including the evidence and comments from stakeholders, the special meeting of the Planning Commission should be set at least 30 days prior to it making a final decision on this FEIR and pending Special Use Permit.

XIV. Conclusion
The FEIR’s continuing informational deficiencies render it unlawful. The City’s responses to commenters do not address their arguments against the adequacy of the DEIR. The FEIR contains an incomplete project description, a deficient cumulative impact analysis that omits relevant projects and impacts, inadequate alternatives analysis, and an incomplete evaluation of environmental justice, air quality, traffic, language access, public health and biological resources impacts. Accordingly, the Planning Commission should not certify an FEIR at this time and must deny the requested Special Use Permit until the City is able to present a comprehensive and accurate report of the Project’s scope, impacts, alternatives, and mitigation measures.
112 City of Oxnard, Planning Commission Report, (October 20, 2022), p.10. 113See Letter from CAUSE et.al., to Jay Dobrowalski, Re: Port of Hueneme =Vehicle Storage Site Environmental Impact Report Comment Period, (March 21, 2022); available at page 141 of the Planning Commission Staff Report for October 20, 2022.
114 Response to the comments submitted by our organizations were sent out from the email account of Senior Planner, Jay Dobrowalski at 5:00 p.m. on Monday, October 10, 2022. 367

Sincerely,
Radhika Kannan
Fernando Gaytan
Earthjustice
Natalia Ospina
Heather Kryczka
Natural Resources Defense Counsel
Lucia Marquez
Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy (CAUSE) Mati Waiya
Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation
368

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

PLANNING DIVISION
214 SOUTH C STREET
OXNARD, CALIFORNIA 93030

MEMORANDUM
Agenda Item No.: F.1
Date: October 20, 2022
To: Planning Commission
From: Joe Pearson II, Planning Manager, (805) 385-8272
Subject: Transmittal Memo No. 2 – Port of Hueneme - Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage Facility - PLANNING AND ZONING PERMIT No. 18-500-02 (Special Use Permit); Located at southeast corner of Hueneme Road and Perkins Road (APNs: 231-0-092-105 and 231-0-092-245). A request for a Special Use Permit to construct and operate a temporary outdoor vehicle storage facility for a maximum of five years on the approximately 34-acre project site. Upon expiration of the Special Use Permit, the vehicle parking area, the guard house, portable restroom, perimeter site lighting, and gravel surface would be removed. The fencing, landscaping, and drainage and associated infrastructure improvements would remain on-site and be maintained by the property owner. The project site is located within the Light Manufacturing with Planned Development Additive Zone (M-1-PD). The request includes certification of the proposed Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2020069039) and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) which has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As mandated by the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR has been subject to the City’s internal review process and reflects the Lead Agency’s independent review and judgment and objectivity with regard to the scope, content, and adequacy of analysis. Filed by Christina Birdsey, 333 Ponoma Street, Port Hueneme, California 93044-0608, designated agent (the “Applicant”) on behalf of A&J Oxnard LLC, 18980 Ventura Boulevard, Unit 200, Tarzana, California 91356 (the “Property Owner”).

Subsequent to the release of the staff report and posting of transmittal memo #1, staff received additional comment letters from members of the public concerning the proposed project (attached). Staff has reviewed the letters and will provide responses as necessary.

Attachment
A. Public Comment Letters received after Transmittal Memo #1 369

1 October 19, 2022

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Rose Chaparro
City Clerk
300 West Third Street
Fourth Floor
Oxnard, CA 93030
Email: [email protected]
Re: Agenda Item F-1: The Port of Hueneme – Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage Facility Project (#2020069039) and PZ 18-500-02 (Special Use Permit) Honorable Commissioners:

You play a vital role in preserving and enhancing the quality of the City of Oxnard’s (“City”) natural and built environments by making sound and impartial land use decisions.1 As Commissioners, you are expected to conduct fair hearings, consider environmental protection, avoid using false or inaccurate information, and make decisions based on evidence in the record.2 Your decisions must also be in the best interest of the people of Oxnard and protect their health and safety.3 These core principles must govern your deliberations.

While we have submitted formal written comments on the final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) for your consideration, in this letter we present the law governing environmental review of the proposed Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage Facility Project (“Project”) along with evidence demonstrating why you should not certify a final EIR and should deny the Special Use Permit.

Administrative Process to Date and Need for Recirculation This agenda item concerns the City’s approval for a vehicle storage site to facilitate the Port of Hueneme’s (“Port”) operations and a related Special Use Permit. A Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR“) has been prepared and circulated. After an evaluation of public comments on the DEIR, the Planning Commission must decline to certify FEIR if the report is 1 See City of Oxnard, Planning Commission (last accessed Aug. 2, 2022) available online https://www.oxnard.org/city-department/community-development/planning/planning-commission/. 2 Institute for Local Government, The Planning Commissioner’s Role at p. 5 (last accessed Aug. 2, 2022) https://www.ca-ilg.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/resources__PCH_sec1.pdf. 3 City of Oxnard Ethics Advisory Subcommittee, Report And Recommendations On City Council Ethical Standards And Guidelines (2015) available online https://www.oxnard.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/05/Final-Draft-May-2015.pdf. 370

2 inadequate, fails to follow CEQA guidelines and cannot support the approval of the Special Use Permit pending before you.

As explained in greater detail in our comments to the FEIR, this FEIR contains new information that must be recirculated for public review and comment before being considered by the Planning Commission, based on state CEQA regulations. CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5.

Although this new information does not come close to addressing the myriad of inadequacies found in both the DEIR and the FEIR, the City adds new information that the public should be allowed to thoroughly review and evaluate with sufficient opportunity to further comment.

Moreover, the Planning Commission should have the opportunity to hear from the public and other agencies about these revisions before making its final decision. The FEIR must be recirculated.

The Evidence Strongly Supports Rejecting the FEIR
The FEIR, public comments, additional expert reports, and information initially submitted by the applicant are all considered record evidence. We incorporate by reference our previous letters submitted on February 14, 2022, July 1, 2022, and our comments to the FEIR submitted most recently on October 19, 2022. For your convenience, we have attached these prior comments to this letter as Exhibits A, B, and C. Additionally, in June 2021, CAUSE and NRDC submitted Public Records Act (“PRA”) requests to the City and the Port. Although the City has almost entirely ignored the PRA requests, the Port has produced additional responsive documents.

These documents have revealed much more detail about the Port and the City’s true intentions for expanding port operations, including vehicle storage sites.

Since we submitted our supplemental comments to the Planning Commission on July 1, 2022, a subset of these produced documents were brought to the attention of the Planning Division and have since become part of the administrative record. The released documents show, as further explained below, that in compiling the FEIR, the City has: knowingly separated or “piecemealed” this project from other expansion projects in a way that would downplay its true environmental impacts, willfully ignored significant environmental issues, did not include adequate project detail in the FEIR, and failed to translate the relevant EIR documents for meaningful public review.

The Law
Based on the City’s CEQA Guidelines (“Guidelines”), below is a summary of the mandatory elements of a FEIR. To support your assessment of whether the FEIR for the vehicle storage site meets these mandatory elements, we have included questions at the end of each legal requirement to help you evaluate whether applicants have provided satisfactory answers. As you consider these requirements, we request that you keep in mind not only the evidence that applicants submitted, but also the evidence that has come to light through the PRA responses. 371

3 1. The FEIR Must Include An Accurate Project Description.

In considering land use and social impacts, the Guidelines require the Commission to review the description of the proposed project. Guidelines § 10.3, 13.3. An accurate project description is foundational to reliable review. As the Guidelines note, the description must include: the size, density, and intensity of the operation. Id at § 10.3. Relatedly, the Commission must determine how the Project would generate employment. Guidelines § 13.3.

If a project is too narrowly defined by dividing a proposed development into several segments, it will improperly limit the analysis to only a portion of the project and fail to assess the complete environmental impact of the two halves of the project. CEQA prohibits such “piecemealing” to avoid a more robust review of the potential direct or indirect environmental changes caused by a project.4
The FEIR misquotes the law. The standard for when a project needs to be considered is not when the City receives a Permit Application. Rather, the law requires that an EIR must include analysis of the environmental effects of future expansions or other actions when: a) a project is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project; and 2) the future expansion or action is significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects.

Thus, an accurate project description is the foundation for an adequate analysis of the environmental impacts. Without a reliable description, decision makers such as yourselves would have to make key permitting decisions in the dark. Moreover, if the City is allowed to proceed in this way, the public will be kept from necessary information to properly evaluate the impact of the proposed project.

Questions:
• Does the Project Description improperly exclude the 250-acre site in light of evidence showing that it is a “reasonably foreseeable” extension of the current project? o Considering the record evidence that the Port drafted conceptual plans, pursued financial arrangements with customers, listed the project as a priority for grant funding, sought for the site to be designated as an Opportunity Zone, and grouped the two projects in their public annual financial reports, the answer is yes. The 250-acre project is reasonably foreseeable and should have been included in the FEIR Project Description.
4 CEQA Portal Topic Paper Project Description at p. 2, AEP (Feb. 2020), available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Project%20Description%202020%20Update.pdf. 372

4 • Does the Project Description explain how the Project impacts are temporary? o Considering the evidence demonstrating a serious off-port land deficit, the lack of any evidence showing how the site will be transitioned to a different use in the future, the allegedly temporary project suggests that it will not be temporary. o Indeed, if truly temporary, the project would fail to satisfy its own stated objectives— to “reduce and consolidate” reliance on off-port satellite storage locations.
• Does the Project Description explain how the employment benefits are permanent? o There is scant evidence demonstrating how such a temporary project will provide the promised economic growth and permanent job opportunities. o Record evidence indicates that only 14 new jobs would be created.5 But does not explain how these jobs would remain after the temporary project is disbanded.

2. The FEIR Must Consider Cumulative Impacts
The FEIR misquotes the law. The standard for when a project needs to be considered in a cumulative impacts analysis is not determined by when the City receives a Permit Application.

Rather, CEQA requires a discussion of cumulative impacts i.e., the incremental impact of the project when considered in the context of “closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects.” Guidelines § 17.1. Under the same Guidelines, a “reasonably foreseeable future project” is one where the cumulative project is a) “in an adopted capital improvement program … or other plan” or b) the City or other pertinent agency has devoted significant time and financial resources to prepare for any regulatory review of the project. Id. at § 17.2. Furthermore, Section 15130(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines defines consideration of (A) a list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects and (B) a summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional, or statewide plan, or related planning document as elements necessary to provide an adequate discussion of cumulative impacts.

Each phase of the project will have direct air quality impacts. Changes to air quality will directly and adversely impact the health of Oxnard citizens. Air quality impacts can compound and exacerbate respiratory conditions for vulnerable populations in the area. As commenters have previously noted, to reach the 34-acre site, traffic will pass by five elementary schools, one high school, low-income housing, and a community health clinic.6 5 The FEIR notes that there will be 167 local employees. However, these are existing GLOVIS employees who would continue to be employed.
6 Comments Submitted by Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy, Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation, The Port of Hueneme- Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage Facility Project (#2020069039) and PZ 18-500-02 (Special Use Permit) (Feb. 14, 2022).
373

5 The City has a procedural and a moral obligation, to ensure that the cumulative impacts of this project do not burden communities that are already disproportionately impacted by poor air quality.

Questions:
• Based on the record evidence, are there other pieces of evidence demonstrating growth that should have been considered in cumulative assessments? o Yes, evidence demonstrating the resources invested in channel deepening, the STACKED project (among others) indicate that the cumulative impacts of these additional projects must be considered in the FEIR.
• Does the EIR look at the cumulative and direct impacts from existing or planned projects including warehouses and planned port expansions? o No. Although there is record evidence showing the likelihood of these expansions, these have not been listed or accounted for as past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects in the EIR, which is in violation of CEQA. • Did the EIR include or list the 250-acre site as a cumulative impact? o No. Even if it is not included in the project description as described above, record evidence shows that it is a “reasonably foreseeable future project” for which the Port has devoted significant time and financial resources to prepare for any regulatory review of the project. Guidelines § 17.2. The City’s omission from the cumulative impacts violates CEQA.

3. The FEIR Must Capture Key Environmental Information.

The Guidelines highlight several environmental issue areas including consideration of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions and transportation for which the applicant must provide sufficient information to allow for meaningful review. The Guidelines note that “for land use and transportation related projects, the degree of compliance with policies intended to minimize GHG emissions will remain an important part of assessing their impacts.” Guidelines § 5.1. The Guidelines also note that the State’s metric of Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”) will “replace or augment” the current Level of Service (“LOS”) method. Guidelines § 15. The State formally adopted the VMT metric on July 1, 2020. As such, the Applicant must incorporate the VMT standard either in place of, or in addition to the LOS standard. Yet, the City admits that neither it nor the City of Port Hueneme have adopted guidelines or significant criteria for assessing VMT by development projects.7 Instead, the City conducts only a cursory analysis of estimated vehicle trips in order to avoid doing a more robust study and inquiry into what type of impact this project is likely to have. For example, even though there is no evidence that the Port is prepared to shut down existing storage sites, the City conveniently adopts the assumption that this project will reduce trips to those sites while failing to explain how that occurs if this project is allegedly temporary. Moreover, as stated in our FEIR comments, 7 FEIR Section 12.4.1, pp. 12-13.
374

6 evidence suggests that the traffic study that the City relies on was a hollow gesture, intended to create a paper trail to justify its predetermined conclusions.

Similarly, the FEIR fails to fix or explain fundamental flaws in the modeling used to calculate air emissions from increased traffic, construction, and operation of the site. The FEIR also continues to lack the requisite health impact assessment or proper analysis of GHG’s.

Because of these omissions, the FEIR is not a reliable report on environmental impacts.

Question:
• Does the FEIR accurately perform a traffic analysis and consider reasonable, zeroemission alternatives? o No. The evidence has shown that the traffic study was rubberstamped. The City misapplies the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in evaluating the Project’s VMT impacts.

Furthermore, the VMT analysis is internally inconsistent and conclusory, and cannot be relied on.
o The Port’s failure to consider using zero-emission vehicles (even though GLOVIS is one of the region’s only makers of HD Class 8 zero-emission trucks) is an insufficient alternatives and mitigation analysis under CEQA. • Does the FEIR accurately assess greenhouse gas emissions, damage to air quality, and health impacts that might stem from the Project?
o No. The City refuses to conduct a proper health impact analysis for this Project, insisting that it does not have to do so.
o The FEIR bases its conclusions on health impacts and air pollution on flawed modeling in which the FEIR has failed to properly justify the inputs used to project those emissions, thus calling into question the calculations the City uses to justify not doing more to protect the public, including the refusal to conduct a proper health risk assessment.
o Moreover, the FEIR relies on outdated thresholds which the City fails to justify through substantial evidence. This has resulted in the FEIR unjustifiably failing to identify any potentially significant GHG impacts from the project.

4. The FEIR Must Allow Public Participation In The Review Process.

As the Guidelines makes clear, the FEIR must enable meaningful public participation in the review process. See CEQA Guidelines at p. 1. The Guidelines also note that the public must be given notice and an opportunity to comment on the FEIR. Id. at p. 10. According to the latest census data, in Oxnard as a whole, 66% of residents speak a language other than English at home.

Translation of environmental documents and workshops is necessary to promote non-English speaking individuals’ right to meaningfully participate in environmental decisions that impact their health and safety.
375

7 Question:
• Was Project Information translated into Spanish and Mixteco? o The evidence has shown that because the Port failed to translate key environmental documents, workshops, and hearings into Spanish and Mixteco, many Oxnard residents could not meaningfully participate in discussions about the Project.

What the Commissioners are Called to Do Based on the Law and Evidence As Commissioners, it is your duty to weigh and to evaluate all of the evidence received for this Project, and, in that process, to decide whether this project has undergone the legally required environmental review and meets California’s environmental standards. It is also your duty to apply the law whether you agree with it or not. The answers to the above questions highlight the fundamental omissions in the FEIR and the broader CEQA process. The evidence shows that, despite the City’s claims to the contrary, the FEIR was inadequate and conclusory in nature, and therefore precluded meaningful public review.

We ask that you not certify a final EIR at this time and deny the Special Use Permit.

In the alternative, the Applicant must incorporate the required information under the City’s CEQA Guidelines and recirculate the EIR. CEQA requires agencies to recirculate an EIR when “significant new information” is disclosed and provide an opportunity for a renewed public notice and comment. CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5(d), (f); see also Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21092.1 (West). The public deserves an opportunity to review and comment on a comprehensive EIR that discloses the full extent of the Project’s environmental impacts.

Sincerely,
Radhika Kannan
Fernando Gaytan
Earthjustice
Natalia Ospina
Heather Kryczka
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Lucia Marquez
Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy (CAUSE) Mati Waiya
Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation
376

October 19, 2022
City of Oxnard Planning Commission Sent via email [email protected] 305 West Third Street
Oxnard, CA 93030
Re: Agenda Item F - Vote No on Port of Hueneme Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage Facility Dear Commissioners,
Climate First: Replacing Oil & Gas (CFROG) is a grassroots environmental nonprofit dedicated to combating the climate crisis by working to shape the transition from fossil fuels to a carbon-free economy in Ventura County. We are committed to the establishment of an economy that is sustainable, inclusive, and promotes renewable energy. CFROG urges the Oxnard Planning Commission to reject the Final EIR (FEIR) and vote NO on the 34-Acre GLOVIS Port Expansion.

The proposed expansion plans for the Port of Hueneme conflict with the community vision for a healthy, sustainable South Oxnard. We will not accept any more pollution in Oxnard and instead call for an alternative vision: full transparency on planned projects for future port development, a healthy environment with a zero-emission commitment from the Port, and no more industrialization between South Oxnard neighborhoods and coastal beaches.

Environmental Injustice - Don’t Create a Diesel Death Zone The FEIR fails to consider the impact on air quality and community health from diesel trucks that will transport cars from the 34-acre site to dealerships in the County and beyond. This expansion will bring more diesel trucks onto Hueneme Road, polluting the air with more cancer-causing exhaust and other harmful pollutants.

Diesel particulate matter is linked to several serious public health problems including, but not limited to:
● aggravating asthma,
● heart and lung disease,
● cancer, and
● premature mortality.

PO Box 114 ● Ojai, California 93024 ● (508)794-0629 ● [email protected] ● www.cfrog.org CFROG is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization ID# 46-2660066 377

Twenty years ago, diesel engine exhaust was classified as “carcinogenic to humans” after being linked to lung cancer induction and death from lung cancer. The state estimates that 70 percent of the cancer risk linked to air pollution for the average person in California results from breathing diesel exhaust. To be approving the exponential increase in diesel pollution in a heavily populated community is irresponsible and unjust.

The nearby South Oxnard community is already experiencing an overall pollution burden higher than 94 percent of other California communities, and a diesel particulate matter burden higher than 86 to 90 percent of the rest of the state (CalEnviroScreen 4.0). This has led to higher than average rates of asthma, low birth weights, and cardiovascular disease in surrounding, down-wind communities.

GLOVIS has already started to use zero-emission trucks in other communities to improve air quality. At the very least, all transportation as a result of this expansion should be zero-emission, instead of dirty diesel.

Contributing to Climate Crisis
We are increasingly feeling the impacts of climate change in Ventura County - the fastest warming county in the contiguous United States - from wildfire to continued drought to unavoidable sea level rise. While the FEIR broadly determines this project to have a “less than significant impact” on greenhouse gas emissions, it fails to consider the lasting effects of industrializing an area or the alternative biological carbon sequestration of maintaining open space.

Increasing the number of diesel-powered vehicles will undoubtedly have significant climate impacts. A large proportion of diesel particulate matter is composed of black carbon. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently reported that emissions of black carbon are the second largest contributor to global warming, after carbon dioxide emissions.

The FEIR drastically underestimates greenhouse gas emissions by inaccurately describing the project as “temporary” and only considering 3-5 years of impact. First, records have been submitted to the city that indicates the Port of Hueneme has larger expansion plans, including contracts and grant applications, to expand to a 250-acre storage location. Second, the long-term greenhouse gas impacts of industrialization on this land are unaccounted for. What future emissions will be a result of this infrastructure? Additionally, this is one of the last pieces of unindustrialized land between South Oxnard neighborhoods and the coast. It neighbors the Ormond Beach Wetlands, which are being restored as a public green space for the community to enjoy. The FEIR falsely states that a scenario of “no project/no build” has “no impact” on all impact areas, including air quality, biological resources, and greenhouse gas emissions.

This scenario should have been classified as “environmentally superior” as open space can improve air quality, sequester carbon, and promote healthy wildlife. 378

True Commitment to the Environment means Commitment to People The Port of Hueneme has received multiple Green Marine certifications, been voted the Greenest Port in the U.S. by industry, and describes itself as “committed to the environment.” CFROG applauds these advancements and is a partner in the Port’s local air monitoring efforts. But we urge the Port to truly follow its commitments by ensuring that all business decisions - from electrification to expansion - are done equitably and in a way that does not reinforce existing systemic inequities.

The FEIR fails to accurately examine the negative impacts of this project. We urge you to not certify the FEIR and deny the proposed Special Use Permit. Thank you for prioritizing the health, air quality, and future of South Oxnard over industrialization and diesel expansion.

With urgency,
Haley Ehlers, Associate Executive Director
379
10/20/22, 9:51 AM City of Oxnard Mail - [Ask Planning Action] 0/20 Public Hearing-Public comment to Vote NO on the Temporary Vehicle Storage P… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=94536ae8d9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1747219154525508174&simpl=msg-f%3A1747219154… 1/2 Solis, Rogelio <[email protected]>
[Ask Planning Action] 0/20 Public Hearing-Public comment to Vote NO on the Temporary Vehicle Storage Project
1 message
Citlali Clarissa <[email protected]> Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 8:00 AM To: [email protected]
Dear Oxnard Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to urge you to reject the Final EIR (FEIR) and vote NO on the 34-Acre GLOVIS Port Expansion. As Commissioners, it is your job to conduct fair hearings that work to preserve the environment and health of Oxnard residents and avoid using false or inaccurate information when making important decisions for our city.The FEIR fails to include an accurate project description, does not consider impacts to air quality and pollution from diesel trucks, and avoids consideration of alternatives to alleviate the pollution burden on South Oxnard neighborhoods.

It is not accurate to describe this project as temporary when the FEIR fails to say what the long term plans are for Port Storage after the 3-5 years. It has been submitted to the record that the Port of Hueneme and GLOVIS already have plans, started contracts, and applied for grants to start a much bigger 250 acre expansion project, over seven times as big as this one farther down Hueneme Road, but it was left out of the FEIR. There cannot be a vote on this project without a study on long-term plans for Port storage.

The FEIR states the project will not be expanding more shipments into the port, but it also says the project is going to allow more shipments from GLOVIS to create more jobs at the port. Both cannot be true. This project will only bring 14 jobs, all of which are contracted by GLOVIS that pay around minimum wage and are non-union. We want long-term highpaying union jobs in our community.

The Port has said cars stored at the 34-acre site will be picked up by diesel trucks to transport them to dealerships around the country but the FEIR does not consider impacts to air quality from diesel trucks. This project will bring more diesel trucks on Hueneme Road, polluting our air with more cancer causing diesel exhaust. Diesel exhaust is the #1 cancer-causing air pollutant and exposure can result in lung function damage in children that lasts a lifetime.

Right now, the port is using 31 acres of extra storage at the naval base to help the Port of LA during the pandemic. Instead of turning more and more land in South Oxnard into port storage which brings more and more polluting trucks to our neighborhoods, the FEIR should consider other options like using space in the navy base and the use of zero emission trucks.

This FEIR fails to accurately examine the negative impacts of this project. I’m asking that you do not certify the FEIR and deny the Special Use Permit. Oxnard deserves clean air and 380
10/20/22, 9:51 AM City of Oxnard Mail - [Ask Planning Action] 0/20 Public Hearing-Public comment to Vote NO on the Temporary Vehicle Storage P… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=94536ae8d9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1747219154525508174&simpl=msg-f%3A1747219154… 2/2 environmental justice!
Sincerely,
Citlali Plaza
--
Citlali
381
10/20/22, 9:41 AM City of Oxnard Mail - [Ask Planning Action] Agenda Item F https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=94536ae8d9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1747174604140019004&simpl=msg-f%3A1747174604… 1/1 Solis, Rogelio <[email protected]>
[Ask Planning Action] Agenda Item F
1 message
John Brooks <[email protected]> Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 8:12 PM To: [email protected]
Dear Commissioners,
Please vote No on the proposed “temporary “ parking facility in South Oxnard . My friends who live there already suffer from the health impacts of diesel exhaust. South Oxnard has suffered enough and adding to its pollution burden is not what the Port should be doing. At the very least why is there no analysis of the benefits of electric trucks on the already underestimated greenhouse gas and particulate emissions? The FEIR is inaccurate but I will let the scientists tell you the details.

I just know you should not certify the FEIR and in the name of environmental justice vote No on the pro.

Thank you,
John Brooks
Oak View
382
10/20/22, 9:47 AM City of Oxnard Mail - [Ask Planning Action] GLOVIS Port Expansion https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=94536ae8d9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1747198391149855241&simpl=msg-f%3A17471983911… 1/2 Solis, Rogelio <[email protected]>
[Ask Planning Action] GLOVIS Port Expansion
1 message
Katie McCarthy <[email protected]> Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 2:29 AM To: [email protected]
Dear Oxnard Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to urge you to reject the Final EIR (FEIR) and vote NO on the 34-Acre GLOVIS Port Expansion. As Commissioners, it is your job to conduct fair hearings that work to preserve the environment and health of Oxnard residents and avoid using false or inaccurate information when making important decisions for our city.The FEIR fails to include an accurate project description, does not consider impacts to air quality and pollution from diesel trucks, and avoids consideration of alternatives to alleviate the pollution burden on South Oxnard neighborhoods.

It is not accurate to describe this project as temporary when the FEIR fails to say what the long term plans are for Port Storage after the 3-5 years. It has been submitted to the record that the Port of Hueneme and GLOVIS already have plans, started contracts, and applied for grants to start a much bigger 250 acre expansion project, over seven times as big as this one farther down Hueneme Road, but it was left out of the FEIR. There cannot be a vote on this project without a study on long-term plans for Port storage.

The FEIR states the project will not be expanding more shipments into the port, but it also says the project is going to allow more shipments from GLOVIS to create more jobs at the port. Both cannot be true. This project will only bring 14 jobs, all of which are contracted by GLOVIS that pay around minimum wage and are non-union. We want long-term high-paying union jobs in our community.

The Port has said cars stored at the 34-acre site will be picked up by diesel trucks to transport them to dealerships around the country but the FEIR does not consider impacts to air quality from diesel trucks. This project will bring more diesel trucks on Hueneme Road, polluting our air with more cancer causing diesel exhaust. Diesel exhaust is the #1 cancer-causing air pollutant and exposure can result in lung function damage in children that lasts a lifetime.

Right now, the port is using 31 acres of extra storage at the naval base to help the Port of LA during the pandemic. Instead of turning more and more land in South Oxnard into port storage which brings more and more polluting trucks to our neighborhoods, the FEIR should consider other options like using space in the navy base and the use of zero emission trucks.

This FEIR fails to accurately examine the negative impacts of this project. I’m asking that you do not certify the FEIR and deny the Special Use Permit. Oxnard deserves clean air and environmental justice!
Respectfully,
Katie McCarthy
383
10/20/22, 9:47 AM City of Oxnard Mail - [Ask Planning Action] GLOVIS Port Expansion https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=94536ae8d9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1747198391149855241&simpl=msg-f%3A17471983911… 2/2 384
10/20/22, 9:53 AM City of Oxnard Mail - [Ask Planning Action] Item 1 Permit 18-500-02 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=94536ae8d9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1747223241452313432&simpl=msg-f%3A1747223241… 1/1 Solis, Rogelio <[email protected]>
[Ask Planning Action] Item 1 Permit 18-500-02
1 message
'David Caskey' via Planning <[email protected]> Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 9:05 AM Reply-To: David Caskey <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], Lucas Zucker <[email protected]> Item 1 Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage Facility
18-500-02
I urge the Planning Commission to deny this permit. I fully support the position of the Friends of Ormond Beach, of which I’m a member, and of the Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy, which I support.

Most of us familiar with the Coast between Pt. Mugu and Port Hueneme would agree that what we’ve done there is a disgrace. A beautiful and ecologically rich environment has been used as an industrial sewer. The health of the nearby residents has been wrecked. It’s a blight, on Oxnard, on Ventura County, and on California and it’s commitment to preserve and protect its Coast.

The first step towards recovery is to stop doing harm. You have that chance here, with this decision. There should be no more industrial zoning south of Hueneme Road between the Navy property and the City of Port Hueneme.

The Port is important, but it can be sustained and improved using existing land and infrastructure. The joint use agreement, currently being used to help congestion in the Los Angeles Ports, can be modified to sustain its future viability.

One of the most dedicated, and sorely missed public servants in Ventura County was Carmen Ramirez. She spent many years trying to address the mistakes of the past. In an interview with the LA Times, over five years ago, she said, “It’s clear who gets stuck with all the dirty stuff. What other city has three power plants and a Superfund site on the beach. The people of Oxnard have paid their dues.”
I hope you honor her memory.

In her words, “We just want to stop the abuse and get our coast back.” Regards,
David Caskey
Port Hueneme
385
10/20/22, 12:34 PM City of Oxnard Mail - [Ask Planning Action] Opposition to FEIR Final EIR https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=94536ae8d9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1747236321216029533&simpl=msg-f%3A1747236321… 1/2 Solis, Rogelio <[email protected]>
[Ask Planning Action] Opposition to FEIR Final EIR
1 message
Cori Raffaelli <[email protected]> Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 12:33 PM To: [email protected]
Dear Oxnard Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to urge you to reject the Final EIR (FEIR) and vote NO on the 34-Acre GLOVIS Port Expansion. As Commissioners, it is your job to conduct fair hearings that work to preserve the environment and health of Oxnard residents and avoid using false or inaccurate information when making important decisions for our city.The FEIR fails to include an accurate project description, does not consider impacts to air quality and pollution from diesel trucks, and avoids consideration of alternatives to alleviate the pollution burden on South Oxnard neighborhoods.

It is not accurate to describe this project as temporary when the FEIR fails to say what the long term plans are for Port Storage after the 3-5 years. It has been submitted to the record that the Port of Hueneme and GLOVIS already have plans, started contracts, and applied for grants to start a much bigger 250 acre expansion project, over seven times as big as this one farther down Hueneme Road, but it was left out of the FEIR. There cannot be a vote on this project without a study on long-term plans for Port storage.

The FEIR states the project will not be expanding more shipments into the port, but it also says the project is going to allow more shipments from GLOVIS to create more jobs at the port. Both cannot be true. This project will only bring 14 jobs, all of which are contracted by GLOVIS that pay around minimum wage and are non-union. We want long-term high-paying union jobs in our community.

The Port has said cars stored at the34-acre site will be picked up by diesel trucks to transport them to dealerships around the country but the FEIR does not consider impacts to air quality from diesel trucks. This project will bring more diesel trucks on Hueneme Road, polluting our air with more cancer causing diesel exhaust. Diesel exhaust is the #1 cancer-causing air pollutant and exposure can result in lung function damage in children that lasts a lifetime.

Right now, the port is using 31 acres of extra storage at the naval base to help the Port of LA during the pandemic. Instead of turning more and more land in South Oxnard into port storage which brings more and more polluting trucks to our neighborhoods, the FEIR should consider other options like using space in the navy base and the use of zero emission trucks.

This FEIR fails to accurately examine the negative impacts of this project. I’m asking that you do not certify the FEIR and deny the Special Use Permit.Oxnard deserves clean air and environmental justice!
Sincerely,
Cori Raffaelli
386
10/20/22, 12:34 PM City of Oxnard Mail - [Ask Planning Action] Opposition to FEIR Final EIR https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=94536ae8d9&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1747236321216029533&simpl=msg-f%3A1747236321… 2/2 This is a staff email account managed by Oxnard Union High School District. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. 387
10/20/22, 4:38 PM City of Oxnard Mail - Fwd: Fw: Port of Hueneme request for Vehicle Storage Facility at Ormond Beach https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=8839c2507f&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1747247289348456513%7Cmsg-f%3A1747251687177… 3/3 From: Irene
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2022 3:03 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Larry Godwin
To: the City of Oxnard and Planning Commissioners
Re: Port of Hueneme request for Vehicle Storage Facility at Ormond Beach a. Adopt a Resolution certifying Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 22-01 for the Port of Hueneme - Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage Facility (Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse No. 2020069039); and b. Adopt a Resolution approving Planning and Zoning Permit No. 18-500-02 (Special Use Permit) for a vehicle storage facility, subject to certain findings and conditions.

For Oxnard,
Please OPPOSE the Port of Hueneme Vehicle Storage at this location.

Oxnard can do better! A car park at Ormond is an imposition efforts any hope for a public project at Ormond.

Despite the Port’s claim that the project is temporary, it is an eyesore to the adjacent community already in need of improvements, and a threat to existing rare native coastal environment. This rare parcel is virtually the last remaining native land on our coastline… needs to be protected for a preserve at Ormond for the generations!
Irene Rauschenberger
Oxnard Resident
Sent from Windows Mail
388

October 19, 2022
Via Email and Federal Express
Jay Dobrowalski
Senior Planner
City of Oxnard Planning Division
214 South C Street
Oxnard, CA 93030
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Comments on The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Port of Hueneme – Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage Facility Project (#2020069039) and PZ 18-500- 02 (Special Use Permit)
Dear Mr. Dobrowalski:

We are in receipt of the Planning Department’s Final Environmental Report, and respond here with comments submitted by Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy (CAUSE), Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthjustice and the Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation. We submit the documents listed below on the enclosed thumb drive via FedEx, and available through this OneDrive link 4527 - Port of Hueneme Comments - Sources Shared on October 19 2022* via email. These documents contain key references cited in our comments, which we ask you to consider in conducting your review and include in the administrative record associated with this matter.

1. Attachment 1: Dobrowalski July 13th Email
This email is from Mr. Jay Dobrowalski, the Senior Planner for the City of Oxnard Planning Division, acknowledging receipt of our February comment letter, and noting that the letter and all supporting documents would be entered into the record.

2. Attachment 2: Commenters’ October 11, 2022 Errata Request This email is from Commenters requesting an erratum after realizing the supporting documents had not been entered into the record as part of the FEIR documentation.

3. Attachment 3: Previous Comment Letters and Attachments February 14, 2022 Initial Comment Letter (and attachments) and July 1, 2022 Supplemental Comment Letter (and attachments).
* The following email addresses have access to this folder: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. Please email Radhika Kannan at [email protected] or Fernando Gaytan at [email protected] if there are any access issues. 389

4. Attachment 4: SWAPE Reply Report and Supportive Document

5. Attachment 5: Dr. Smallwood Reply Letter and Supportive Documents

6. Attachment 6: 2022 Automotive Logistics News Article on Electric CarCarrier Trucks Sincerely,
Radhika Kannan
Fernando Gaytan
Earthjustice
Natalia Ospina
Heather Kryczka
Natural Resources Defense Counsel
Lucia Marquez
Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy (CAUSE) Mati Waiya
Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation
390

October 19, 2022
Via Email and Federal Express
Jay Dobrowalski
Senior Planner
City of Oxnard Planning Division
214 South C Street
Oxnard, CA 93030
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Comments on The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Port of Hueneme – Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage Facility Project (#2020069039) and PZ 18-500- 02 (Special Use Permit)
Dear Mr. Dobrowalski:

We submit these comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) for the Port of Hueneme – Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage Facility Project (“Project”) on behalf of the Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy (“CAUSE”), Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense Council (“NRDC”), and Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation (“Wishtoyo”).

The FEIR fails to address several fundamental deficiencies in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) that commenters had previously identified. Despite the submission of over 200 comments on the DEIR, the City of Oxnard Planning Division (“OPD” or “City”) has only made minor revisions to its analysis in finalizing the FEIR. 1 Even when confronted with
new knowledge, facts, and expertise, including record evidence from the Oxnard Harbor District’s (“OHD” or the “Port”) internal documents, the City has refused to reevaluate its mistaken analysis. Consequently, the FEIR is legally deficient and unfit for certification under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

I. The Record Must Include Commenters’ Submitted Evidence on July 1, 2022 Following the close of the public comment period for the DEIR in February 2022, commenters became aware of new evidence through documents produced in response to a Public Records Act request to the OHD. These documents contained substantial relevant information for decisionmakers to be aware of ahead of deciding whether to approve this proposal.

Furthermore, on March 21, 2022, the City hosted a Virtual Community Workshop with presentations from the OHD discussing its plans for the 34-acre Vehicle Storage Site currently under review. At the conclusion of the Virtual Community Workshop, OPD invited additional 1 Final Environmental Impact Report, Port of Hueneme – Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage Facility Project, SCH No. 2020069039 (Sept. 2022) (hereinafter “FEIR”).
391

written comments from the public concerning the proposed Project and the presentation by the Port. In line with this invitation, and to ensure that the Commissioners and other decisionmakers were provided with information necessary to make an informed decision, commenters submitted supplemental comments on July 1, 2022, in addition to the comments submitted on February 14, 2022.

The City of Oxnard Planning Division has acknowledged receipt and noted that the letter and all supporting documents would be entered into the record. The confirmation email is attached hereto as Attachment 1, Dobrowalski July 13, 2022 Email. Although the July 1 letter appears in Attachment F of the Staff Report (along with other letters submitted after February 14, 2022), the supporting evidence does not. When commenters realized that the supporting documents had not been entered into the record as part of the FEIR documentation, commenters sent an email to Mr. Dobrowalski requesting an erratum. This request is attached hereto as Attachment 2, Commenters’ October 11, 2022 Errata Request. This erratum has not been filed.

As Planning Commissioners are tasked with deciding whether to approve this controversial project, they should have access to the entire record. In an abundance of caution, we are attaching the July 1, 2022 letter, as well as the February 14th letter, and all supporting documents to each of these comments as Attachment 3, Previous Comment Letters and Attachments.

Commenters request that the Commissioners strongly consider both the July 1, 2022, supplemental letter, and all supporting evidence in deciding this permit. We realize that this is a significant amount of information to review in a short amount of time which is also why we previously asked for the Commission’s decision to be delayed for 30 days until the Commissioners have had an opportunity to hear from the public and have full access to the entire record in this considerable matter.

II. The FEIR Fails to Adequately Respond to Comments
When comments raise significant environmental issues through expert declarations or evidence-based assertions, the FEIR’s response must provide a reasoned, good-faith analysis and “describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised.”2 Comments must be “addressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted.”3 Detailed responses are required to “ensure that the lead agency will fully consider the environmental consequences of a decision before it is made.”4 Generally, the level of detail in the response must match the level of detail in the comment.5 “[C]onclusory statements unsupported by factual information” are never an adequate response.6 Yet, such conclusory statements are precisely what the City has proffered in its FEIR.

Firstly, other than the Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”) analysis, the City has not made any substantive changes to the DEIR. Mere editorial changes do not rise to the level of fully engaging with public comments. Secondly, and more egregiously, while commenters have 2 Cal.Code Regs., tit.14, §15088(c). 3 Id.
4 City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 889, 904. 5 Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1552, 1568. 6 Cal.Code Regs., tit.14, §15088(c); City of Maywood v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 362, 391.
392

provided detailed explanations including several citations to documents produced by the OHD, the City’s response to these detailed and well-supported objections has been to overwhelmingly refer commenters to “Global Responses.” See e.g., FEIR Comment Response 206-15; 206-24 (the response containing nothing more than “Please refer to Global Response GR-3, Relation of Project to the Multimodal Logistics Park and Global Response GR-8, Cumulative Projects.”) At the same time, no additional details can be found in these Global Responses. These Global Responses do not grapple with OHD’s emails, grant applications, internal memos and other logical inconsistencies pointed out by the commenters. This failure to engage extends to most responses to the comments.

As such, the City has failed in its CEQA obligation to provide detailed reasoning for why commenters’ suggestions were not accepted. Overall, the City has not shown a good faith effort to consider public input.

III. The FEIR Improperly Piecemeals the Analysis of the Whole Project and Fails to Analyze the Impacts of Important Project Components
The FEIR’s flawed Project Description violates the fundamental goal of CEQA, which is to provide complete and accurate information about the environmental impacts of a proposed project before it is approved. The City claims that the design of the Project is meant to “[r]educe and consolidate, where feasible, Port vehicle customer reliance on off-Port satellite storage locations, which would reduce the need for car carrier truck movement to distribute vehicles to those locations.”7 The FEIR also notes in the Project Description that the 34-acre outdoor vehicle storage facility is meant to be temporary – for a maximum of 5 years.8 Yet, the FEIR misstates the true scope of the 34-acre site, leading to an incorrect analysis regarding the design of the Project.

A. The FEIR Misstates and Improperly Rewrites CEQA Requirements The FEIR attempts to re-write the CEQA process for what must be considered in the Project Description.

The law requires that an EIR must include an analysis of the environmental effects of future expansions or other actions when: a) a project is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project; and b) the future expansion or action is significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects.9 “[T]he environmental review accompanying the first discretionary approval must evaluate the impacts of the ultimate development authorized by that approval. … Even though further discretionary approvals may be required before development can occur, the agency’s environmental review must extend to the development envisioned by the initial approvals. It is irrelevant that the 7 FEIR, Section 3.5, p. 3-15. 8 FEIR, Section 3.6, p. 3-15. 9 Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of Univ. of California 47 Cal. 3d 367, 396 (1988), as modified on denial of reh’g (Jan. 26, 1989).
393

development may not receive all necessary entitlements or may not be built. Piecemeal environmental review that ignores the environmental impacts of the end result will not be permitted.”10 CEQA mandates “that environmental considerations do not become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones – each with a minimal potential impact on the environment – which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences.”11 The FEIR’s failure to recognize the 250-acre site stems from its erroneous interpretation of CEQA requirements. The FEIR claims that the 250-site does not need to be integrated in this project description and no environmental analysis needs to be conducted because: (1) “the City of Oxnard has not received an application for proposed development of a 250-acre site” 12; and (2) a 250-acre parcel would require annexation which would be subject to future environmental review.
13 Whether a project is a “reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project” does not depend upon whether the City has received an application for it or whether that project might trigger additional CEQA review. Indeed, such a requirement is nowhere to be found in the City’s or the State’s CEQA Guidelines. The City cites to no authority for these “requirements” for which projects need to be included in its project description.14 These additional elements are created out of whole cloth by the City to avoid re-writing the project description to include what is clearly a foreseeable project. As described above, the City cannot use the fact that the entitlement will be subject to further environmental review as an excuse to avoid integrating the extension in its analysis currently.

B. The FEIR’s Conclusions Regarding the 250-Acre Site Are Not Supported By Substantial Evidence.

The City concludes that because “the future development of a 250-acre site is unspecified and uncertain, the City has determined that potential future development of a 250-acre site is not reasonably foreseeable and is speculative.”15 However, this conclusion flies in the face of the wealth of documents presented to the City demonstrating how the City was well aware of the depth of the planning for the 250-acre site.

As commenters have highlighted in their previous letters, several documents from the Port (including new documents released in response to commenters’ Public Records Act request) indicate that beginning in 2018, the Port has started drafting conceptual plans, pursuing financial arrangements with customers, hiring consultants related to the project, considering the 250-acre project for grants, and designating the site as an Opportunity Zone.16 Yet, in response, the FEIR 10 See Kostka, et al., Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act, § 6.52, p. 298. 11 Bozung v. LAFCO, 13 Cal.3d 263, 283-84 (1975); City of Santee v. County of San Diego, 214 Cal.App.3d 1438, 1452 (1989).
12 FEIR, Section 12.4.2, p. 12-9. 13 Id. 14 Id. 15 Id. 16 Attachment 3, February Comment letter, pp. 9-11 (hereinafter “Commenters’ February Letter”); see also Attachment 3, July Comment Letter, pp. 4-5 (hereinafter “Commenters’ July Letter”). 394

Global Responses makes no effort to address these documents. The City’s response is entirely inadequate.

First, the FEIR selectively ignores evidence that the Port has coordinated with the City a more permanent solution to the auto storage issue through the 250-acre site. The Port produced a document titled “Collaboration Call with City of Oxnard” with the goal of “Partnership for Economic Development.”17 The document has an “ongoing deadline” and is supplemented with information about the 250-acre site, including grant applications and the inclusion of the 250- acre site in census tracks as an Opportunity Zone.18 Furthermore, a flyer published by both the City of Oxnard and the Port indicates that “[t]he stop gap 34-acre measure … will ensure that the City of Oxnard and the PoH will have sufficient time to structure and meet all regulatory requirements for the longer term 250-acre port logistics park with access to rail.”19 Thus, the City was well aware that the 250-acre site was a reasonably foreseeable extension of the 34-acre site.

Second, the Global Response to Comments regarding piecemealing the 250-acre site, is primarily devoted to explaining how the 250-acre Multimodal Logistics Park site “was conceptual at the time of the Notice of Preparation and is one possible concept for potential future development” (emphasis added).20 But the Port’s communications to landowners, the Memoranda of Understanding (“MOU”) and Letters of Intent (“LOI”) between GLOVIS and the Port, and the funding applications demonstrate that concrete steps have indeed been taken to bring the project into fruition and render the 250-acre site very far from merely “conceptual.”21 Third, the FEIR’s Project Description fails to consider the timescale of the Project. It makes no sense to assume, as the FEIR does, that given the serious land deficits (over 300-acres) the Port is facing, that there will be no further land use planned for automobile storage once the five-year temporary site expires.22 The FEIR summarily dismisses these land deficits by referring commenters to its superficial Global Responses. 23 This is not substantial evidence to
support a conclusion that the 250-acre site is speculative. By postponing review of this component, the FEIR improperly bifurcates the project in violation of CEQA, and in doing so, severely underestimates the impact on human health and the environment. 17 Commenters’ July Letter, p. 8 (citing OHD, Collaboration Call with City of Oxnard at p. 2). 18 Id. (Commenters also noted that “Private investments made within this zone will expect return on their investment over a period of time. This strongly suggests that an increased movement of cars and other goods through this corridor was reasonably foreseeable.”) 19 Commenters’ July Letter, p. 8 (citing City of Oxnard & The Port of Hueneme: Partners in Economic Development, Flyer Re: Ensuring the commercial viability of a major Ventura County Economic Engine - The Port of Hueneme (PoH) - for a better tomorrow at the City of Oxnard.) 20 FEIR, Section 12.4.2, Global Response 3, p. 493. 21 Commenters’ July Letter, pp. 6-8 (citing Email between Dona T. Lacayo and GLOVIS USA (Nov. 7, 2019), Email between Dona T. Lacayo and GLOVIS USA (Aug. 20, 2019), Email between Dona T. Lacayo and GLOVIS USA (Sept. 2019); Memorandum of Understanding, Oxnard Harbor District (March 3, 2020); Email from Kristin Decas to Commissioners, Subject Weekly Update (Oct. 16, 2020); OHD, Collaboration Call with City of Oxnard at p.2 (Ongoing)).
22 Commenters’ February Letter, p. 9; Commenters’ July Letter, p. 9 (citing Oxnard & POH Commercial Viability Report, p.1. PROD-PHCN0000828). 23 FEIR, Section 12.5, Response to Comment Letter #206, Response No. 206-15, p. 12-1162. 395

IV. The FEIR’s Project Description is Inaccurate and Misleading and Impedes Meaningful Public Review
As stated in prior comments, the City has disingenuously omitted analysis of the broader Port logistics expansion that this Project represents. The City has strained to create a project description that artificially limits the scope of the Project to the 34-acre site, despite substantial evidence demonstrating a much broader plan to increase storage capacity in the region, including at the 250-acre Multimodal Logistics Center. In doing so, the City has produced a FEIR with a flawed project description under CEQA that contradicts its own objectives and fails to offer the Planning Commission the information necessary to properly assess the impacts of this project.

This is discussed further in Section V.

The City simply ignores the multiple comments submitted concerning the inadequacy of the project description itself—more specifically, the incompatibility of the Project’s objectives with the alleged “temporary” nature of the storage site.24 One of the key objectives listed for this Project is to “reduce and consolidate” reliance on off-port satellite storage locations.25 Yet, the City maintains that the project will be temporary, stating: “[t]he project proposes a temporary outdoor vehicle storage facility (vehicle storage facility or facility) for a maximum of 5 years on the approximately 34-acre project site. Future expansion of Port facilities based on the project is speculative at this time.”26 The FEIR fails to reconcile this inherent conflict nor explain how the Project, allegedly limited to a maximum of 5 years, will actually result in the consolidation of existing sites to meet the Project’s objectives.

As we stated in our July 1, 2022 comment letter, the City has failed to explain how the Project will be both “temporary” and fulfill its objectives to consolidate off-port storage.27 There are no details, for example, for how the site will be transitioned post-Project but continue to serve the consolidation objective and meet the Port’s known need for more land to accommodate its expansion.28 Moreover, if this project is truly temporary, it would fail to satisfy the stated objectives—making Alternative One: No Project/No Build by far the environmentally superior alternative29 that the City should adopt. The rejection of this alternative in the FEIR is based on deficient and incomplete analysis.

The inadequacy of the project description means that the Planning Commission is being called to make a decision “in the dark”—without the necessary information to fully appreciate the full scope of this Project or its impact. The approval actions before the Commission, therefore, involve much more than a straightforward EIR approval. Here, Planning 24 See Commenters’ July Letter 25 FEIR, Section 3.5, p. 3-15. 26 FEIR, Section 12.5, Response to Comment Letter #206, Response No. 206-20, p. 12-1163. 27 Commenters’ July Letter, pp. 9-10. 28 Id. 29 The FEIR also identified Alternative Two: Two Existing Off-Port Vehicle Storage Locations as the environmentally superior option among the Project alternatives. FEIR, Section 6.9.4, pp. 6-16. This conclusion is as flawed as the rejection of the No Project/No Build alternative, as the analysis of this alternative is not only incomplete, but also fails to incorporate feasible mitigation measures to address air quality impacts, such as the implementation of zero-emission technology. See Commenters’ February Letter, p 69; FEIR, Section 6.7, pp. 6-5 to 6-10.
396

Commissioners are not simply being asked whether to certify the FEIR and approve a Special Use Permit for a single project. Despite how the Planning Division has decided to reframe this project as a “Temporary” Vehicle Storage Facility to make it seem benign, this Project sets the stage for an unprecedented expansion of Port activities into the very neighborhoods that have already borne the brunt of air pollution, traffic, noise, and lack of greenspace and coastal access.

This is not simply a storage lot; it will hasten the expansion of commercial and industrial activity in the region— an expansion for which we do not know the true extent of environmental impact.

Because of these flaws in the project description, the FEIR remains inadequate as an informational document and precludes meaningful public review. It should therefore be rejected in its current form and recirculated for further public review if revised to fix these discrepancies.

V. The FEIR Fails to Consider a Reasonable Range of Alternatives and Improperly Rejects Existing Alternatives
A major function of an EIR is the lead agency’s full assessment of a reasonable range of alternatives stemming from a well-prepared project description and statement of objectives. 30 However, where a project description is inadequate or overly narrow—as in the case here—the alternatives analysis risks being equally flawed. As discussed at more length in commenters’ February and July letters,31 the project objectives are narrowly tailored in a way that facilitates the City’s improper rejection of alternatives that could offer substantial environmental advantages and avoid worsening air quality and further concentrating industrial uses and harms adjacent to an over-burdened residential neighborhood, while still meeting most project objectives. As a result, the FEIR contains a flawed and incomplete analysis of feasible alternatives and fails as an informational document that facilitates meaningful public engagement. It, therefore, cannot be certified.

The FEIR fails to address the deficiencies in the DEIR’s alternatives analysis. First, the lack of detail provided in the EIR prevents a meaningful public review and a reasonable choice of alternatives.32 For instance, it is impossible to know based on the limited discussion and lack of detailed information provided in the EIR whether there are no feasible alternative sites for car storage that would meet most of the stated objectives.33 Lead agencies are required to disclose in their EIR their reasons for concluding that no feasible alternative locations exist.34 However, the City’s failure to consider the Navy Base Ventura County (“Navy”) property as an alternative site 30 Cal. Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; Cal.Code Regs., tit.14, § 15124(b); Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v.

Regents of the Univ. of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400; In re Bay-Delta etc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1163, citing Cal.Code Regs., tit.14, § 15124(b).
31 Commenters’ February Letter, pp. 68-83; Commenters’ July Letter, p. 15. 32 See Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Com. v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 274, 287 (“Absolute perfection is not required; what is required is the production of information sufficient to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned.”)
33 FEIR, Section 1.5, pp. 1-11 to 1-12. 34 Cal.Code Regs., tit.14, § 15126.6(f)(2)(B); see also Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 405, as modified on denial of reh'g (Jan. 26, 1989) (“Those alternatives and the reasons they were rejected, however, must be discussed in the EIR in sufficient detail to enable meaningful participation and criticism by the public.” (citations omitted)). 397

in the EIR and to instead address its feasibility solely in a General Response, violates CEQA and is further evidence of the FEIR’s failings as an informational document.

Second, the FEIR continues to apply circular logic to reject alternatives for not lessening project impacts. By failing to carry out the full analysis required under CEQA, the FEIR underestimates the Project impacts. As a result, it comes to the incorrect conclusion that the project would not result in significant or unavoidable impacts and therefore the City has no obligation to consider alternatives. However, as discussed at length in this and other comments, there is substantial evidence that the project will have significant impacts on the environment and public health.

Third, the FEIR improperly conflates the City’s jurisdiction with feasibility. Alternatives cannot be rejected simply because they are beyond the lead agency’s authority.35 And yet, the City relies on this argument to avoid even considering alternatives raised by commenters. For instance, the City relies on the 34-acre property being privately-owned to conclude that a park alternative is infeasible.36 Similarly, the City refuses to consider the Navy property37 as a feasible alternative in part because it does not have jurisdiction over Navy property.38 This ignores the definition of feasibility under CEQA39 and fails to address the central question of whether the OHD as the project proponent has reasonable access, ownership, or control over alternative sites.
40 In the case of the Navy property alternative, the close relationship between the OHD and the Navy evidenced by a 2021 Joint Use Agreement demonstrates that it is a viable alternative worth considering. Nevertheless, this goes undiscussed in the FEIR. The City should apply the CEQA definition of feasibility and fully evaluate all reasonable alternative locations41, including the Navy property.
35 See Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Com. v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 274, 286–287 (“[I]t is not appropriate to disregard alternatives simply because the alternative may be beyond the scope of expertise of the agency or because the alternative may require implementing legislation since CEQA was intended to provide a basis for consideration and choice by all branches of government.”) 36 FEIR, Section 12.4.2, p. 12-15. 37 It is disingenuous for the City to claim it is not informed about the Joint Use Agreement between the Navy and the Port given the coverage the agreement received in the local press. See, e.g., Commenters’ February Letter, p. 71 (citing Brian J. Varela, Port of Hueneme, Navy Partner to Assist Los Angeles County Port Backlog, Ventura County Star, November 28, 2021, 10:40 a.m.; https://www.vcstar.com/story/news/2021/11/28/port-hueneme-assist-lacounty-ports-through-agreement-navy/8771397002/). 38 FEIR, Section 12.4.2, p. 12-15. 39 CEQA Guidelines define feasibility as capable of “being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors. Cal.Code Regs., tit.14, § 15364. 40 Cal.Code Regs., tit.14, § 15126.6(f)(1). See, e.g., Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Com. v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 274, 288 (finding that an alternative to develop a university athletic stadium jointly with the city was properly rejected based on a prohibition to spend funds on a non-university stadium and the city’s documented lack of interest in a joint stadium project). 41 Another such alternative site could include prioritizing the on-dock parking structure for which the OHD has sought federal funding over the past several years, which is intended to store over 7,000 vehicles. Commenters’ February Letter, p. 71 (citing Oxnard Harbor District, Economic-Environment Partnership, Slide presentation (undated), Slides 29 and 30); see also https://maritime.dot.gov/PIDPgrants. While not all information about this proposal is public, it is apparent that it is not speculative; the Port has hired consultants to study this parking 398

Finally, the FEIR once again ignores the current availability of zero-emission technology42 and GLOVIS’ role as a leading regional maker of heavy-duty Class 8 zeroemission trucks in its rejection of the Electric Car Carrier Truck Alternative. During public meetings and in public statements, the OHD frequently highlights its alleged commitment to a zero-emission transition, and yet when an opportunity arrives to make a clear commitment that investment is not even considered or analyzed. In order to begin to address the air quality impacts from the Port on the surrounding community, the OHD must invest in a zero-emission transition and establish near-term milestones to achieve that vision, such as the use of zeroemission car-carriers. In their expert reply to the FEIR, Matt Hagemann and Dr. Paul E.

Rosenfeld identify several mitigation measures related to zero-emission technology that the City should consider and evaluate to address air quality impacts from the Project.43 Due to deficiencies described above and in previous letters, the EIR contains an inadequate discussion of project alternatives in violation of CEQA.

VI. Mitigation Measures Offered in FEIR Continue to be Inadequate Under CEQA, a public agency cannot approve a project if there are “feasible mitigation measures which substantially lessen the significant environmental effects” of the project.44 Any potential mitigation measure must be at least partially effective in reducing the significance of the impacts at issue.
45 The FEIR fails to offer mitigation measures that meet this standard. Since the FEIR does not evaluate the full scope of the Project due to an overly narrow project description and project objectives, it fails to analyze, much less address, the significant impacts that would result from the Project. Given that most mitigation measures in the FEIR went unaltered,
46 those measures continue to be inadequate and will not substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the full scope of the Project.

Moreover, the few updates made to mitigation measures for biological resources and cultural and tribal resources in the FEIR continue to fall short of addressing the impacts from the Project. For instance, the addition of a preconstruction wildlife survey to the biological resource mitigation measures will be insufficient in detecting special status species, as discussed in detail by Dr. Shawn Smallwood.
47 As a result, the FEIR’s mitigation measures are deficient, and new measures must be considered following a complete evaluation of the Project’s full impacts. structure proposal. Commenters’ July Letter, p. 13 (citing Oxnard Harbor District, Professional Services Agreement (May 26, 2021); and Oxnard Harbor District Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy at p. 50 (2021)). 42 Commenters’ February Letter, pp. 71-83; Commenters’ July Letter, p. 15. There are companies working on developing zero-emissions Class 6-8 car carrier trucks and a commitment by the OHD to order and use these carriers could drive additional investments in this type of technology. See Namrita Chow, Electric car carriers promise to pack a punch, Automotive Logistics, access Oct. 17, 2022 at 4:52pm, https://www.automotivelogistics.media/finished-vehicle-logistics/electric-car-carriers-promise-to-pack-apunch/42868.article, attached hereto as Attachment 6. 43 Attachment 4, SWAPE Report, pp. 12-13 (hereinafter “SWAPE report”). 44 Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21002. 45 Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, (2018) 431 P.3d 1151,1166. 46 Commenters’ February Letter, pp. 63-67. 47 See Attachment 5, Smallwood Reply Letter (Oct. 18, 2022), pp.8-9 (hereinafter “Smallwood Reply Letter”). 399

VII. The FEIR Inadequately addresses the Cumulative Impacts The FEIR’s flawed cumulative analysis violates CEQA. The City claims that Table 4-1 lists all projects that could contribute to considerable cumulative impacts.48 The FEIR also acknowledges various Port projects that are in development, including the 250-acre Multimodal Logistics Park, channel deepening, berth widening, on-dock expansions, expansion of rail lines, the Structure for Transfer of Automobiles Creating Key Economic Development (STACKED) Project, off-Port Cargo storage yards and overall expansion of Port Operations, the INVEST Project, the BUILD Project, and the Port Intermodal Corridor (Hueneme Modernization Project).49 Yet, the FEIR fails to include relevant projects in its cumulative analysis.

A. The FEIR Misstates and Improperly Rewrites CEQA Requirements for Cumulative Impacts
The FEIR attempts to re-write the CEQA process for what must be considered in a cumulative impact analysis.

The City admits that CEQA requires that the FEIR address cumulative impacts.50 Cumulative impacts are those that result from “the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts.”51 The incremental effects of an individual project “are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”52 Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.53 A relatively “small” impact is not insignificant under CEQA if it contributes to an existing environmental problem.54
The City also admits CEQA requires a cumulative impact analysis to contain, at minimum, either 1) a list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects, including those projects outside the agency’s control that produce related or cumulative impacts55 or 2) a summary of such projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document 48 FEIR, Section 4.2, p. 4-2. 49 FEIR, Section 12.4.2, pp. 12-17 to 12-18. 50 FEIR, Section 4.1, p. 4-1; Cal.Code Regs., tit.14, § 15130; see also Cal.Code Regs.,tit.14, § 15355 51 Cal.Code Regs., tit.14, § 15130(a)(1). 52 Id. at § 15065(a)(3). 53 Id. at § 15355(b) (The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time). 54 “[A] project’s cumulative environmental impact cannot be deemed insignificant solely because its individual contribution to an existing environmental problem is relatively small.” See, San Francisco Baykeeper, Inc. v. State Lands Comm’n (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 202, 223. “In fact, ‘the greater the existing environmental problems are, the lower the threshold should be for treating a project's contribution to cumulative impacts as significant.’” Id. (quoting Cmtys for a Better Env’t v. Cal. Res. Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 120). 55 FEIR, Section 4.1, p. 4-1; CEQA suggests that agencies consider factors such as the nature of the environmental resource examined, location of project, and type. Cal. Code Regs., tit.14, § 15130(b)(2). 400

that evaluates regional or areawide conditions.56 The cumulative impacts analysis of this Project continues to remain flawed.

As with the Project Description, the FEIR’s failure to include several projects in its cumulative impacts analysis stems from its erroneous understanding of the CEQA requirements.

The FEIR claims that several pertinent projects need not be considered in its list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects because (1) “each cumulative development project represented in Table 4-1 was “determined to be reasonably foreseeable by the City based on applications that the City received at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Draft EIR was released (June 25, 2020)”57; and (2) the City does not consider conceptual long-range projects under the jurisdiction of another lead agency to be reasonably foreseeable.58 Commenters address each of these excuses in turn. First, whether a project is a “reasonably anticipated” does not turn on whether the City has received an application for it.

Indeed, such a requirement is nowhere to be found in the City’s or the State’s CEQA guidelines.

Because this element is not required under law, it should not factor into which projects are listed.

Second, as plainly stated in the law, the agency must consider any project that can reasonably have cumulative impacts even if “those projects [are] outside the agency’s control.” Thus, the legal excuses provided by the City do not pass muster.

B. The FEIR’s Conclusions Regarding the Projects Included in the Cumulative Analysis Are Not Supported by Substantial Evidence
The City cites to three different reasons why the projects commenters list should not be considered: (1) that some cumulative impacts are speculative; (2) they are not within the proposed geographic zone; and (3) despite proposed increases in passageways for rail and freight traffic, this project doesn’t change capacity requirements.59 These objections are unfounded.

First, commenters have pointed to several projects that could impact the area surrounding the 34-acre site with supporting evidence demonstrating why they are not speculative. For example, the proposed widening of Hueneme Road to four lanes included in the Roads and Transportation Five-Year Capital Improvement Program; how the Port has invested in a new rail line with GLOVIS; and the capital investments to deepen berths to accommodate larger capacity vessels.60 The City makes no effort to engage with the wealth of evidence of these substantial 56 Id. at § 15130(b)(1). 57 FEIR, Section 12.4.2, p. 12-17. 58 Id., at p. 12-18. 59 Id., at pp. 12-17 to 12-18. 60 Commenters’ February letter at pp. 19-20 (citing INFRA FY19: Multimodal Optimization & Vehicle Efficiency Project Summary, PROD-00002504; INFRA FY20 Application Project Summary; 2020 OHD Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, PHCN0002370; 2020 OHD Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, PROD-PHCN0002353; INFRA FY19 Multimodal Optimization & Vehicle Efficiency Project, PRODPHCN00005158; OHD Board of Commissioners Meeting Agenda- September 11, 2017-Press Report Attachment, PROD-00002699; The Hueneme Modernization Project BCA Appendix - March 17 2021, PROD-0004367; The Hueneme Modernization Project INFRA Grant Application FY2021, PROD-0003201; Ventura County Freight Corridor Study, (October 2021), Prepared by Iteris, Inc., on behalf of Southern California Council of Governments, The Port of Hueneme, Caltrans and Ventura County Transportation Commission at 36, PROD-PHCN0001900- 2126).
401

plans. The record evidence demonstrates that concrete steps have been taken to bring the listed projects into fruition and disprove the City’s conclusion that these projects are “speculative.”61 Second, commenters have provided figures for the proposed developments including a figure showing the relative locations of the 34-acre site to the 250-acre site, a figure showing the relative position of the STACKED project (on the North Terminal), and another showing the traffic pathways and the potential widening of Hueneme Road.62 The City’s response to these relevant images has been to claim that these images “do[] not raise an issue related to the adequacy of any specific section or analysis of the Draft EIR.”63 At the same time, the City notes that the cumulative impacts are only assessed in the geographic area “bound by Bard Road to the north; Ormond Lagoon Waterway/Edison Drive to the east; the Pacific Ocean to the south; and Ventura Road and other areas within the City of Port Hueneme to the west, but not within the Port of Hueneme or Naval Base Ventura County (“Navy”) Port Hueneme.”64 As described above, the City cannot shirk its duty to review cumulative impacts just because a project may be in another agency’s control. Thus, delineating a line for any project “within the Port of Hueneme” is legally void, particularly given how the Port is viewing its many expansion projects as interconnected and in furtherance of their stated goal of expanding throughput. Furthermore, the lines drawn at Bard Road, Ventura Road, and Edison Drive are internally inconsistent. For example, the City addresses air quality concerns arising from Port operations and agricultural use which are outside these boundaries.65 The City also extends the VMT analysis to Camarillo Airport and Tuff shed – both of which are outside these arbitrary lines.66 The City cannot cherry pick instances in which to apply these arbitrary boundaries in a self-serving manner. The City cites to no authority for setting these specific limitations. At the very least, the city must explain why it chose these boundaries as supported by substantial evidence e.g., scientific studies indicate that emissions from facilities do not travel beyond “X” miles. In summary, these geographic boundaries are arbitrary and not supported by substantial evidence.

Even within these arbitrary boundaries that the City has set, several projects listed have at least some portion of their operations within this geographic region. The City cannot dismiss all these projects as outside the geographic area without taking a hard look at the impacts that portions of these proposed projects will likely have.

Third, the City admits that the “project would result in less trucking and more rail on/off moves compared to existing conditions” yet, the City concludes that it doesn’t need to conduct a cumulative impact analysis because “the City has not received an application for a new rail project.”67 Similarly, in response to commenters noting that there are berth widening and 61 FEIR, Section 12.5, Responses to Comment Letter #206, Response Nos. 206-35 to 206-38, pp. 12-1164 to 12- 1165.
62 See FEIR, Section 12.5, Responses to Comment Letter #206, Response No. 206-17, p. 12-1162; Response No. 206-25, FEIR p. 12-1163; and Response No. 206-38, FEIR p. 12-1165. 63 Id. 64 FEIR, Section 12.4.2, pp. 12-17 to 12-18. 65 FEIR, Section 5.33, p. 5.3-8. 66 FEIR, Section 12.4.1, p. 12-13 67 FEIR, Section 12.5, Responses to Comment Letter #206, Response 206-23, p. 12-1163. 402

dredging projects that would increase shipping traffic, the City concludes that new cars stored at the vehicle storage facility would not require additional ships.68 Even assuming that the temporary 34-acre site will neither facilitate an increase in goods movement by ship nor rail nor truck in the area (a fact that commenters do not concede), the fact that all three pathways propose to be extended in this exact area reflect, without a question, significant impacts. Simply, the City fundamentally and mistakenly conflates these points in the FEIR and leaves the Planning Commission and the public with an incomplete cumulative impacts analysis.

Finally, even with the projects that have been listed in Table 4-1, the City undertakes no analysis of how the listed projects will impact the area surrounding the 34-acre site – including but not limited to additional emissions that might result and how that could impact vulnerable populations.69 In summary, the EIR’s cumulative impacts analysis remains deficient such that the FEIR cannot be certified.

VIII. The FEIR Fails to Consider Environmental Justice Impacts and Violates CEQA The temporary 34-acre storage site is located next to low-income, densely populated neighborhoods in south Oxnard. As commenters note in their February letter, a Report prepared by the California Office of Attorney General (“OAG”), provisions of CEQA, and Government Code Section 11135 require lead agencies to study the environmental justice impacts of projects and to mitigate those impacts.70 Part of the discussion in the FEIR must include an evaluation of the location of the project because the significance of an impact on people and the environment may change based on the project’s setting.71 Commenters pointed to studies demonstrating how California communities of color and low-income communities bear a disproportionate burden of the state’s diesel trucking emissions.72 Commenters also highlighted that the nearest school is only 780 feet from the Project site and the proposed Project would also be located as close as 360 feet from residences located to the northwest, north, and northeast of the Project site.73 To these points, the City’s response has been to point the public to Global Response No. 5 on environmental justice impacts. 74 This response is insufficient. Although the City admits that the proposed Project would “result in a minor increase in vehicle traffic…[due to] worker vehicle trips, delivery of heavy-duty equipment and materials, and haul trips,” it nevertheless concludes “impacts would be less than significant on sensitive receptors.” This conclusion is based entirely on the assertion that the project site is “not located in an area with poor circulation or heavy traffic.” The City points to no study supporting its circulation finding and proffers no 68 FEIR, Section 12.5, Responses to Comment Letter #206, Response 206-21, p. 12-1163. 69 FEIR, Section 4.2, Table 4-1, p. 4-2. 70 FEIR, Section 12.5, Responses to Comment Letter #206, Response 206-180 to 206-182, p. 12-1189 (citing the Office of the California Attorney General, Environmental Justice at the Local and Regional Level (2012), p. 3, available at https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/ej_fact_sheet.pdf). 71 Id. 72 FEIR, Section 12.5, Responses to Comment Letter #206, Response No. 206-183, p.12-1189 (citing Union of Concerned Scientists, Inequitable Exposure to Air Pollution from Vehicles in California, fact sheet (Feb. 2019), available at https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2019/02/cv-air-pollution-CA-web.pdf.) 73 FEIR, Section 12.5, Responses to Comment Letter #206, Response No. 206-185, p. 12-1190 (citing DEIR, p. 5.3- 9)
74 FEIR, Section 12.4.2, p. 12-11
403

evidence in support of the traffic patterns. In fact, with the additional projects described above, it would seem that the City has conveniently omitted several projects in the pipeline that would increase traffic and emission patterns.

Commenters appreciate that the City has added language responding to commenters’ concerns associated with nearby power plants, superfund site, and factories.75 The City summarily concludes that the “distance between the project” and these sites would not create a significant hazard to the public.76 However, the City fails to provide the underlying data, study, or processes used to come to this determination. Neither the Commissioners nor the public should accept conclusions that have not been properly substantiated – especially where the health and safety of vulnerable populations and overburdened communities are at stake.

IX. The City has Failed to Address Deficiencies in Language Access, Which has Further Frustrated Meaningful Public Review of the EIR Documents The City claims that it is under no obligation under State law (CEQA or otherwise) to translate environmental review documents into Spanish or any other language.77 This response completely ignores comments previously submitted highlighting the fact that limiting public access violates a core tenet of CEQA78 – that “the public holds a ‘privileged position’ in the CEQA process ‘based on a belief that citizens can make important contributions to environmental protection and on notions of democratic decision making.’”79 While the City acknowledges that CEQA, “deems public participation and comment during any environmental review process as an essential part of the CEQA process,” it has done very little to offer document translation or interpretation. In fact, according to the FEIR’s response to comments, only the Port has offered the minimal language access services in the form of a Spanish-translated Executive Summary from the DEIR, and “a video in Mixteco explaining the contents of the Draft EIR.”80
Under the California Bilingual Services Act, State agencies must distribute applicable translated written materials if the State agency “serves a substantial number of non-Englishspeaking persons” and “[t]he information solicited, required, or furnished affects or may affect the individual’s rights, duties, or privileges with regard to that agency’s services or benefits.” Although, as local agencies, the City and Port are not directly subject to this rule, refusing to translate environmental documents restricts limited or non-English speaking individuals’ ability and right to meaningfully participate in environmental decisions that impact their health and safety. Given the importance of this Project to the many residents for whom English is not a primary language, we reiterate our call to translate the EIR and make it accessible by recirculation in order to ensure meaningful public review. 75 Id. 76 Id. 77 FEIR, Section 12.4.2, p.12-9. 78 See Commenters’ July Letter. 79 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15201 (1992). 80 FEIR, Section 12.4.2, p.12-9. 404

X. The FEIR’s Vehicle Miles Travelled Analysis Remains Woefully Inadequate and Does Not Support a Finding of No Significant Traffic of VMT Impacts The City admits that neither it, nor the City of Port Hueneme have adopted guidelines or significant criteria for assessing VMT by development projects81 — a requirement under California Public Resources Code §21099 and 14 Cal. Code Regs § 156064.3 (CEQA Guidelines). Rather than directly responding to our comments highlighting the need for a more robust VMT analysis for the Project, the FEIR points to the same conclusory and vague explanation in its Global Response No. 6 to justify not doing more to provide the Planning Commission and the public with sufficient information to appreciate the full scope of traffic impacts. The FEIR’s conclusion that no VMT impacts would result from the Project is unsupported by what little analysis is offered for three key reasons.

First, the FEIR’s application of Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s (“OPR”) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts (“Technical Advisory”) is flawed. The FEIR fails to adopt any specific methodology or criteria for its evaluation of the Project’s VMT that would make its conclusions verifiable based on OPR’s guidance. It inappropriately adopts a screening threshold when no such threshold applies to this Project and it misapplies the qualitative analysis outlined in the Technical Advisory. The FEIR’s conclusions that no VMT or traffic impacts are present are therefore unreliable.

The FEIR contends that the qualitative analysis approach outlined in OPR’s Technical Advisory is the appropriate evaluation for the Project’s VMT impact.82 It also summarily adopts the DEIR’s conclusion that no VMT impacts would result from the implementation of the Project without showing how the qualitative analysis approach was specifically applied in this case. The City admits based on the screening thresholds outlined in OPR’s Technical Advisory — which apply to residential, office, retail projects, land use plans, and transportation projects — that this project would not “screen out”83, i.e., that further analysis would be required even under a qualitative approach. Yet, the FEIR reaches the conclusion that “the project would lead to a lessthan-significant transportation impact” using the same retail threshold it admits is inapplicable.84 The Technical Advisory does recommend, however, that “[a]gencies should consider whether their actions encourage development in a less travel-efficient location by limiting development in travel-efficient locations.”85 No such data-supported analysis was provided in this FEIR.

Second, the FEIR’s analysis on VMT and traffic impacts is conclusory and relies on contradictory assumptions. For example, in its assessment of alleged VMT reductions, the City assumes the elimination of two existing vehicle storage facilities to conclude overall VMT reduction while at the same time defending the DEIR’s analysis of the traffic effect of the Project 81 FEIR, Section 12.4.2, p.12-13. 82 Id. 83 Id. 84 Id. 85 California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts on CEQA (OPR Technical Advisory) (December 2018), p. 17; available at:
https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf 405

“under existing and cumulative conditions, with due consideration of other related projects in the area.”86 These inconsistencies lead to self-serving conclusions that simply cannot be relied on.87 If current conditions are assumed, then VMT analysis would have to account for the higher VMT that the Project would produce as a result of having the approximately 240 daily trips made in individual cars (according to one estimate provided), compared to the more limited car carrier truck trips making the haul to the furthest existing site. Even using that simplistic comparison, which we do not concede qualifies as a VMT threshold under either the Technical Advisory or CEQA guidelines, the Project would still generate more vehicle miles travelled on its own as compared to the furthest existing site.88 The FEIR attempts to avoid dealing with this increase in VMT by attempting to shoehorn a threshold analysis for new retail facilities that is inapplicable to the Project.

Third, the FEIR ignores evidence submitted showing that the traffic report that underlies much of the City’s environmental review was merely rubber stamped and created in a way to offer cover for predetermined conclusions. It therefore cannot be relied upon to conclude that no impacts will result from the project.

As commenters pointed out in their July 1, 2022 comment letter to the City, documents made available in response to Public Records Act requests suggest that there was never any intention on the part of the Port applicant or the City to vet the real traffic impacts of the 34-acre site. In fact, emails between Port staff and a land-use planning specialist suggest that the City might forgo a traffic report altogether by providing a letter, noting, “the City just needs a paper trail - this way they can cover themselves with a letter from a professional.”89 In subsequent emails, the hired consultant confirmed that they would prepare the trip generation analysis based solely on the Project Description and a Design letter90— without considering the requirements outlined in CEQA guidelines or the recommendations found in the Ventura County Freight Corridors Study. These revelations, which the FEIR neglects to address, cast further doubt on the reliability of calculations, information, and analysis used to support the FEIR ‘s conclusion that no significant traffic or VMT-related impacts will occur.

Given the cursory manner in which the traffic study and VMT analysis were conducted, it is unsurprising that the FEIR is replete with inconsistencies and contradictions that call into question its reliability as an informational document. We call on the Planning Commission to reject this FEIR. Moreover, the City should fix its lack of baseline methodologies and thresholds for assessing the impact of VMT from this Project. Until these errors are corrected, the FEIR fails to meet basic standards under CEQA.
86 FEIR, Section 12.5, Responses to Comment Letter #206, Response 206-51, pp. 12-1166 to 12-1167. 87 Note: the FEIR does not address the inconsistent assumptions highlighted in our February 14, 2022 comment letter wherein we highlight that in order to switch to an analysis that would presume the elimination of two existing sites, the agency must first justify this decision by showing that the existing conditions are somehow misleading or without informational value. No such analysis has been done in the FEIR. See Commenters’ February Letter, p. 25. 88 See id., at pp. 24-25. 89 Commenters’ July Letter (citing emails between Dona T. Lacayo and Kevin Waldron at p. 2 of 8 (Aug. 2018). 90 Id. (citing emails between Dona T. Lacayo and Darryl F. Nelson at p. 1 of 11 (Aug. 2018). 406

XI. The FEIR Continues to Rely on Flawed Air Emissions Modeling, Lacks the Requisite Health Impact Analysis, and Fails to Properly Assess Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

The FEIR fails to justify its modelling used to calculate greenhouse gas emissions (“GHG”) and air quality impacts and continues to lack the necessary analysis on health impacts. These flaws were originally outlined in a findings report submitted by experts Matt Hagemann and Dr.

Paul Rosenfeld and incorporated into commenters’ February 14, 2022 letter. 91 Hagemann and
Rosenfeld have reviewed the FEIR and responses to those comments and have concluded that many of the justifications used by the City for their approach to air emissions, health hazards, and GHG emissions remain fundamentally flawed.92 Several of these flaws in the FEIR are outlined below:
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials – The FEIR fails to address the lack of a Phase I ESA analysis, despite being a key element called for in the City of Oxnard 2030 General Plan Safety and Hazards Chapter. More specifically, the FEIR does not explain why Policy H7.12, which requires a hazardous materials study for any new development, was not followed.
• Air Quality and CalEEMod Model - The FEIR again fails to provide access to, or justify the use of, the underlying data inputs used to calculate the Project’s emissions. More specifically, the FEIR refers to “applicant provided” information for its inputs on the length of construction for the site, yet the underlying data, and the justification for using it, are not made publicly available in the documents attached to the FEIR. This makes it impossible to verify whether the changes to defaults accurately reflect the proposed construction schedule.

Despite the City’s claims that relying on “applicant provided” information is sufficient, CalEEMod requires that information used to change defaults be supported by substantial evidence as required under CEQA.93 The calculations, therefore, remain unreliable and the City must either justify these modifications with substantial evidence or revise its calculations. Similarly, the FEIR’s modeling concerning construction activities is flawed as the FEIR arbitrarily modified construction lengths based on different phases of development – potentially underestimating peak daily emissions. Similarly, the FEIR fails to provide substantial evidence for changing off-road construction equipment amounts therefore making it challenging, if not impossible, to verify if these changes are accurate. • Greenhouse Gas Emissions – The conclusion that GHG impacts are “less-than-significant” relies on the same incorrect and unsubstantiated air modelling described above. Moreover, the FEIR relies on outdated thresholds which the City fails to justify through substantial evidence. This has resulted in the FEIR failing to identify any potentially significant GHG impact from the project.
91 See Letter from Matt Hagemann and Dr. Paul E. Rosenfeld to Fernando Gaytan (February 9, 2022), Attachment A to Commenters’ February Letter. 92 See Letter from Matt Hagemann and Dr. Paul E. Rosenfeld to Fernando Gaytan (October 17, 2022), attached hereto as Attachment 4, SWAPE Report. 93 See SWAPE Report. 407

This flawed analysis of air pollution impacts also extends to the FEIR’s treatment of the necessary mitigation and health impacts associated with it. In concluding that the project will not reach the thresholds set by Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (“VCAPCD”), the FEIR relies on an arbitrarily restrictive view of the Project without accounting for the inconsistencies between the Project Description and Objectives and ample evidence demonstrating that this project encompasses more than the 34-acres described and for longer than five years. This arbitrarily restrictive scope is also used by the City to claim that the Project will not pass emissions thresholds set by the VCAPCD94 and to justify its refusal to conduct the type of Health Impact Assessment required under the California Supreme Court case, FriantRanch.

In short, the FEIR’s conclusion misses the mark. While CEQA may not mandate an indepth risk assessment outright:
“CEQA requires that the EIR have made a reasonable effort to discuss relevant specifics regarding the connection between two segments of information already contained in the EIR, the general health effects associated with a particular pollutant and the estimated amount of that pollutant the project will likely produce.”95
Because the FEIR fails to address flaws in its modeling, its estimation of the pollutants generated by the Project is unreliable. Moreover, the narrow and cursory analysis that the FEIR does offer on air pollutants and potential health impacts, is unverifiable given the lack of access to the underlying data. This foundational information is necessary for informed decision-making and public participation. The City, therefore, cannot support its conclusion that the Project falls under the VCAQCD’s thresholds. Even so, the FEIR misinterprets Friant-Ranch wherein the California Supreme Court found that CEQA requires analysis correlating increased air emissions to probable resulting human health effects.6 The City cannot claim that no emissions will result from this Project just as it cannot avoid the necessary health impact analysis required under Friant-Ranch by simply stating that emissions will not surpass thresholds it has arbitrarily chosen to apply.

As further highlighted in Hagemann and Rosenfeld’s review and commenters’ letters, the FEIR also fails to address the following:
• Diesel Particulate Matter emissions – The City fails to include a health impact of using equipment producing diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions during a construction phase of the Project slated to last over 180 to 200 days and its justification for not doing so is not supported by the evidence. More specifically, as the Hagemann and Rosenfeld report points out, “until both the Project’s construction and operational health risks are quantified, summed together, and compared to the VCAPCD threshold of 10 in one million, the 94 SWAPE Report, pp. 5-6. 95 Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 521 408

FEIR’s response is inadequate” and does not evaluate the Project’s potential health risk impacts.
• Comprehensive assessment of Toxic Air Contaminants – The FEIR fails to provide a “good faith reasoned analysis” of the health effects of any increase in Toxic Air Contaminants caused by the Project, including those that result from the combustion of diesel and gasoline engines associated with the entire car storage complex, the 34-acre and the 250-acre sites, increased Port-related emissions due to augmented cargo throughput, and construction related to the aforementioned projects. • Encroachment of Port-Related Activities – The FEIR also fails to adequately address comments concerning the shift in port-activity emissions towards south Oxnard populations adjacent to the Port-serving freight corridors like Hueneme Road.

In short, the FEIR ignores critical flaws in its analysis and inadequate data verification that call into question its reliability as an informational document for environmental assessment. The law requires that the public and the Planning Commission have an accurate assessment of potential health risks and air quality impacts – which this FEIR fails to deliver.

XII. FEIR Continues to Underestimate Impacts on Special Status Species, Habitats, and Wildlife Movement
The City failed to provide good-faith, reasoned responses to the comments raised regarding the DEIR’s biological impacts analysis.96 Instead, the City offered partial responses and conclusionary statements that ignores large swaths of commenters’ concerns and failed to make significant changes to its analysis to ensure the full scope of direct, indirect, and cumulative biological impacts from the Project are evaluated by the FEIR. Therefore the FEIR’s conclusions that there will not be a significant impact on biological resources from the Project remains unsupported by substantial evidence.

In its responses, the City avoided addressing the full concerns raised in the expert report prepared by Dr. Shawn Smallwood that determined that significantly more special status species likely rely on the property for habitat, foraging, hunting, mating, or other needs.97 The FEIR dismisses this evidence entirely and continues instead to rely on flawed reconnaissance surveys that failed to observe or detect special status species. 98 Further, Dr. Smallwood identified flaws
in the additional assessment attached to the FEIR as Appendix FA. 99 In fact, he explains that the
databases relied upon by the FEIR show bird species using nearby sites with similar levels of disturbance as the Project site, which undermines the FEIR’s conclusion that the Project site cannot be habitat to special status species.100 The FEIR’s over-reliance on inadequate analysis and surveys means it grossly underestimates the special status species that may use the site and the value of this Project property as important habitat. Eliminating 34-acres of habitat (regardless 96 These comments are laid out in significant detail in Commenters’ February Letter, at pp. 39-46 (citing Smallwood report).
97 Commenters’ February Letter, at pp. 39-42. 98 See Commenters’ February Letter, at pp. 40-41 (citing Smallwood report); Smallwood Reply Letter (Oct. 18, 2022), at pp. 3-5. 99 Smallwood Reply Letter (Oct. 18, 2022), at pp. 4-5, 15. 100 Smallwood Reply Letter (Oct. 18, 2022), at p. 8. 409

of whether it is used for breeding or wintering) would result in a significant impact on special status species, thereby meeting the City’s threshold of significance for a biological resources impact.

The slight update to the proposed mitigation measures is not sufficient to lessen the impact below the threshold level of significance. As was raised in previous comments, an additional pre-construction survey is unlikely to detect species that are notoriously difficult to detect in surveys, such as the burrowing owl.101 Moreover, the fact that there may be a detectable presence of a special status species at the time of the pre-construction survey does not change the fact that after five years of intensive use as a parking lot this habitat will be, at best, unavailable during that period and at worst irreparably damaged or destroyed. 102
The City’s refusal to acknowledge the value of this property to wildlife extends to its alternative analysis as well. The FEIR concludes that using the 34-acre site as open space would not lessen the significant impacts from the Project, but that is based on an erroneous conclusion that building a parking lot on un-developed property would not impact special status species or wildlife movement, which is not supported by substantial evidence. 103
Commenters incorporate by reference all points raised in Dr. Smallwood’s October 18, 2022 reply letter.

XIII. The FEIR must be Recirculated Before Project Approval and Certification Under CEQA, an EIR must be re-circulated for review and comment whenever significant new information becomes known to the lead agency and is added to the EIR, after public notice of the availability of the draft document has been made, and before the EIR is certified.104 Under such circumstances the lead agency is specifically required to re-notice the environmental review document to the public and all responsible agencies, and is required to obtain comments from the same, before certifying the document’s impacts and alternatives analyses as well as any mitigation measures.105 A lead agency’s decision not to recirculate an EIR must be supported by substantial evidence.106
“Significant new information” includes any information regarding changes in the environmental setting of the project under review.107 It also includes information or data that has been added to the EIR and is considered “significant” because it deviates from that which was presented in the draft document, depriving the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a significant environmental effect of the project, or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect at the time of circulation of the draft.108 Recirculation is further required where the 101 Smallwood Reply Letter (Oct. 18, 2022), at pp. 8-9. 102 See id., at p. 9. 103 FEIR, Section 12.4.2, p. 12-16. 104 Pub. Res. Code § 21092.1 105 See id.; see also, Pub. Res. Code § 21153. 106 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15088.5(e) 107 Id., at § 15088.5(a). 108 Id. 410

draft EIR is “so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.”109 While re-circulation is an exception and not the rule in the preparation of final environmental review documents, it is an exception that must be invoked here – where the absence of significant information rendered the DEIR ineffective in meeting CEQA’s substantive mandates, and now, where included, the addition of significant new information substantially changes the FEIR’s analyses and conclusions regarding the Project’s impacts, feasible alternatives and required mitigation.110
As stated in numerous comments to the DEIR, that document failed to provide critical information regarding the duration, scope, and mitigation of the Project’s impacts; it failed to adequately describe fundamental information relating to the phasing and timing of the project’s implementation and phase out by claiming to add permanent jobs to the region; it lacked adequate detail specifically regarding the construction and operations phases of the Project, including mitigation; and it contained analyses and mitigation measures relating to the Project’s air quality, traffic, human health and biological resources impacts based on incorrect datasets and formulas.

In some instances, the FEIR erratically and arbitrarily includes selective new data into its analysis of the Project’s impacts, and in others critical information remains absent from the document.

The FEIR contains significant new information and must be recirculated for public review and comment before being considered by the Planning Commission.111 Although this new information does not cure the inadequacies pointed out in comments to the DEIR, the City has added new information that that the public should be allowed to thoroughly review and evaluate with sufficient opportunity to further comment prior to a decision by the Planning Commission. This new information includes, but is not limited to: a revision of Mitigation Measure MM-BIO01 related to biological resources; the addition of land use policies to be considered pertaining to aesthetics; different data on maximum daily construction emissions and maximum daily operational emissions; the addition of a new 2022 California Native Diversity database search performed and new analysis performed resulting from a revised habitat assessment concerning biological resources; alleged revisions to the analysis and evaluation of archaeological resources and mitigation measures proposed as MM-CUL-1 and MM-CUL-2; alleged revisions to the analysis of project impacts and mitigation measures under Tribal Cultural Resources; a new listing of potential hazardous sites; a new summary of significant unavoidable impacts not previously disclosed; remodeling of the project in CalEEMod used for the project to project emissions during construction and operation; and, a list of additional previously undisclosed alternative locations considered by the City. In addition, Appendix D, Air Quality 109 Id. 110 Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 Ca4th 1112, 1132. 111 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, §15088.5. 411

and Greenhouse Gas Study and Appendix FA – Biological Resources Inventory 2022 were updated with new information previously not disclosed.

The FEIR also contains new references to the storage of electric vehicles at the site without any details as to whether these vehicles will require charging infrastructure at the site while the cars are being stored.112 Thus, it is unclear whether further alterations to the site will be necessary in the near future. In short, this new information adds greater uncertainty and highlights the document’s failure as an informational document.

The public must have an adequate opportunity to comment on these many changes and address any new impacts this new information may reveal. Providing just 10 days before a hearing with the Planning Commission does not provide that opportunity for meaningful public engagement concerning the new information contained in the FEIR. Given these revisions, the myriad other information, and alternative analysis added in the FEIR, recirculation is required.

Moreover, on March 21, 2022, our organizations requested that the City schedule a special meeting of the Planning Commission before deciding on whether to approve the Project113. Not only would this give the Commission an opportunity to hear from stakeholders and members of the public and provide for adequate language access, but it would also give the Commission time to review additional evidence that has become available after the comment period. Given the tremendous interest that this Project has garnered with over 200 written comments received, setting a special pre-determination hearing before the Commission is more than appropriate.

The City released its responses to our comments less than ten full days prior to the October 20, 2022 hearing.114 To provide Commissioners with the opportunity to thoroughly review all the evidence, including the evidence and comments from stakeholders, the special meeting of the Planning Commission should be set at least 30 days prior to it making a final decision on this FEIR and pending Special Use Permit.

XIV. Conclusion
The FEIR’s continuing informational deficiencies render it unlawful. The City’s responses to commenters do not address their arguments against the adequacy of the DEIR. The FEIR contains an incomplete project description, a deficient cumulative impact analysis that omits relevant projects and impacts, inadequate alternatives analysis, and an incomplete evaluation of environmental justice, air quality, traffic, language access, public health and biological resources impacts. Accordingly, the Planning Commission should not certify an FEIR at this time and must deny the requested Special Use Permit until the City is able to present a comprehensive and accurate report of the Project’s scope, impacts, alternatives, and mitigation measures.
112 City of Oxnard, Planning Commission Report, (October 20, 2022), p.10. 113See Letter from CAUSE et.al., to Jay Dobrowalski, Re: Port of Hueneme =Vehicle Storage Site Environmental Impact Report Comment Period, (March 21, 2022); available at page 141 of the Planning Commission Staff Report for October 20, 2022.
114 Response to the comments submitted by our organizations were sent out from the email account of Senior Planner, Jay Dobrowalski at 5:00 p.m. on Monday, October 10, 2022. 412

Sincerely,
Radhika Kannan
Fernando Gaytan
Earthjustice
Natalia Ospina
Heather Kryczka
Natural Resources Defense Counsel
Lucia Marquez
Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy (CAUSE) Mati Waiya
Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation
413
1 From: Dobrowalski, Jay <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2022 9:36 AM
To: Radhika Kannan
Cc: Ospina, Natalia; Kryczka, Heather; [email protected]; [email protected]; César Nije; [email protected]; Fernando Gaytan; [email protected]; Andrea Pereira Schork Subject: Re: Supplemental Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Port of Hueneme- Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage Facility Project (State Clearinghouse #2020069039 and PZ 18-500-02 (Special Use Permit)
This message originated outside of Earthjustice. Please use caution before opening attachments or links.

Hello Radhika,
Thank you for your recent comment letter; it has been entered into the record.

Sincerely,
Jay Dobrowalski | Senior Planner
Community Development Department
214 S C Street | Oxnard, CA 93030
O: 805.385.3948 | F: 805.385.7417
www.oxnard.org
Effective February 14, 2022, the Service Center and all public-interfacing City buildings will be open to the public.

Online services remain available through our online portal at www.oxnard.org/planning  General inquiries should be sent via email to [email protected].  For new applications, email us at [email protected]. Large projects can be shipped with prior authorization. Smaller projects may be submitted via email.
 For existing applications, contact your assigned Case Planner by direct email.

For the most up to date information on COVID-19 please visit https://www.venturacountyrecovers.org/ On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 4:19 PM Radhika Kannan <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mr. Dobrowalski,

Please find attached supplemental comments submitted on behalf of the Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy, Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation. These comments address the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) that has been prepared for the proposed “Port of Hueneme – Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage Facility Project (#2020069039) and PZ 18‐500‐02 (Special Use Permit)” (the Project).

414
2 In support of these comments, we are also providing a link to a shared folder containing copies of the supporting documents and reference materials cited in our supplemental comment letter. You can access the folder by clicking on this link: Port of Hueneme: Supplemental Comments. This link will allow you to download the documents for your review.

As a courtesy, we are also sending, via FedEx, a thumb drive containing these same documents. We trust that the City will consider these comments and our supporting materials as part of the record for the proposed Project — including any materials referenced that are otherwise reasonably available to the City online.

For the reasons discussed in the attached supplemental comments, as well as previous submissions made to the City on this matter, we are urging the City to reject the DEIR in its entirety. Please let me know if you have any questions or trouble downloading the attachment.

Thank you,
Radhika Kannan
____________________
Radhika Kannan
Pronouns: she/her/hers
Associate Attorney
California Regional Office
Earthjustice
50 California Street, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: 415.217.2049
earthjustice.org

The information contained in this email message may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure.

If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited.

If you think that you have received this email message in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the message and any attachments.
415
1 From: Radhika Kannan
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 3:44 PM
To: Dobrowalski, Jay
Cc: Fernando Gaytan; Ospina, Natalia; Kryczka, Heather; [email protected]; [email protected]; Andrea Pereira Schork; [email protected]
Subject: Errata for Administrative Record: Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage Facility Project (State Clearinghouse #2020069039) and PZ 18-500-02 (Special Use Permit) Attachments: Re: Supplemental Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Port of Hueneme- Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage Facility Project (State Clearinghouse #2020069039 and PZ 18-500-02 (Special Use Permit)
Dear Mr. Dobrowalski,
We are in receipt of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Port of Hueneme – Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage Facility Project (State Clearinghouse #2020069039) and PZ 18‐500‐02 (Special Use Permit). We look forward to the hearing next week.

We wanted to bring to your attention that our supplemental comment letter submitted on behalf of the Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy, Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation and all supporting documents and reference materials cited in our supplemental comment letter are not included in the current FEIR or the Appendices.

As you had indicated in your July 13, 2022 email (attached here), the letter and the attachments were entered into the record.

Please help us ensure that the administrative record is complete ahead of the hearing with our supplemental comment letter and the supporting attachments.

Thank you,
Radhika Kannan
____________________
Radhika Kannan
Pronouns: she/her/hers
Associate Attorney
California Regional Office
Earthjustice
50 California Street, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: 415.217.2049
earthjustice.org
The information contained in this email message may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure.

If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited.

If you think that you have received this email message in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the message and any attachments.
416
Attachment 3
• February Comment Letter—Submitted by CAUSE, Earthjustice, NRDC, and Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation re: The Port of Hueneme Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage Facility Project (#2020069039) and PZ 18 500 02 (Special Use Permit), submitted February 14, 2022
o All attachments to the letter available here: 4527 ‐ Port of Hueneme Comments ‐ Sources Shared on February 14 2022 *
• July Comment Letter—Submitted by CAUSE, Earthjustice, NRDC, and Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation re: The Port of Hueneme Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage Facility Project (#2020069039) and PZ 18 500 02 (Special Use Permit), submitted July 1, 2022
o All attachments to the letter available here: 4527 ‐ Port of Hueneme Supplemental Comments ‐ Sources Shared on July 1 2022*
* The following email addresses have access to this folder: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. Please email Radhika Kannan at [email protected] or Fernando Gaytan at [email protected] if there are any access issues. 417
User’s Guide
Version 2020.4.0
Prepared for:

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Prepared by:

BREEZE Software, A Division of Trinity Consultants
in collaboration with South Coast Air Quality Management District and the California Air Districts
Date:

May 2021
418
California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod)®
Version 2020.4.0 User’s Guide
i May 2021
Acknowledgements
This program has been developed by BREEZE Software, a division of Trinity Consultants (Trinity) for the California Air Pollution Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) and California Air Districts.

The following individuals should be recognized for their contributions to this version of the program.

California Air Districts’ Development Staff
Barbara Radlein South Coast AQMD
Alison Kirk Bay Area AQMD
Josephine Fong Bay Area AQMD
Yu-Shuo Chang Placer County APCD
Karen Huss Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD
Rachel DuBose Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD
Patia Siong San Joaquin Valley APCD
Mark Montelongo San Joaquin Valley APCD
Eric McLaughlin San Joaquin Valley APCD
Andy Mutziger San Luis Obispo APCD
Jackie Mansoor
Emily Waddington
San Luis Obispo APCD
Santa Barbara County APCD
Matt Jones Yolo-Solano AQMD
Paul Hensleigh Yolo-Solano AQMD
Trinity Staff
Qiguo Jing Managing Consultant
Weifen Qiu Senior Developer
Zhongshu (Tony) Wei Consultant
Allan Daly Consultant
Ronald Hunter Managing Principal
Weiping Dai Director
Vineet Masuraha Director
CAPCOA also recognizes the important contributions made to CalEEMod by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) for granting permission to CAPCOA to utilize its trip generation data. ITE’s Trip Generation Manual can be obtained by visiting ITE’s website:
https://www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/trip-and-parking-generation/. 419
California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod)®
Version 2020.4.0 User’s Guide
ii May 2021
Copyright
California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod)®
Version 2020.4.0
® 2021 All Rights Reserved by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA)
Developed by BREEZE Software, A Division of Trinity Consultants in collaboration with the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the California Air Districts. 420
California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod)®
Version 2020.4.0 User’s Guide
iii May 2021
Table of Contents
Page
Acknowledgements i
Copyright ii
1 Introduction 1

1.1 Purpose of Model 1
2 Program Installation 4

2.1 Operating System Requirements 4

2.2 Installation Procedures 4

2.3 Starting CalEEMod 10
3 Using CalEEMod 11

3.1 Key Features 11

3.2 Home 13

3.3 Defining a Project 13

3.4 Altering Default Data 13

3.5 Mitigation 14

3.6 Reporting 14
4 Detailed Program Screens 15

4.1 Project Characteristics 15

4.2 Land Use 20

4.3 Construction 31

4.3.1 Construction Phase 32

4.3.2 Off-Road Equipment 33

4.3.3 Dust from Material Movement 34

4.3.4 Demolition 34

4.3.5 Trip and VMT 35

4.3.6 On-Road Fugitive Dust 36

4.3.7 Architectural Coatings 36

4.4 Operational Mobile 36

4.4.1 Vehicle Trips 36

4.4.2 Vehicle Emissions 37

4.4.3 Fleet Mix 38

4.4.4 Road Dust 39

4.5 Area 40

4.5.1 Hearths and Woodstoves 40

4.5.2 Consumer Products 42

4.5.3 Area Architectural Coatings 42

4.5.4 Landscape Equipment 42

4.6 Energy Use 43

4.7 Water and Wastewater Use 44
421
California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod)®
Version 2020.4.0 User’s Guide
iv May 2021

4.8 Solid Waste 46

4.9 Off-Road Equipment 47

4.10 Stationary Sources 48

4.10.1 Emergency Generator and Fire Pumps and Default Emission Factors 48

4.10.2 Process Boilers and Default Emission Factors 49

4.10.3 User Defined 51

4.11 Vegetation 52

4.11.1 Land Use Change 52

4.11.2 Sequestration 53

4.12 Mitigation 53

4.12.1 Construction Mitigation 54

4.12.2 Traffic Mitigation 55

4.12.3 Area Mitigation 57

4.12.4 Energy Mitigation 58

4.12.5 Water Mitigation 59

4.12.6 Solid Waste Mitigation 61

4.13 Reporting 61
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Calculation Details
Appendix B: Glossary
Appendix C: Acronym List
Appendix D: Default Data Tables
Appendix E: Technical Source Documentation
Appendix F: Climate Zone Lookup
422
USER’S GUIDE
1 May 2021
1 Introduction
This User’s Guide (Guide) to the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod)® is meant to give the user an introduction on how to use the program as well as to document the detailed calculations and default assumptions made in associated appendices. The purpose of CalEEMod is to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to estimate potential emissions associated with both construction and operational use of land use projects. It is intended that these emission estimates are suitable for quantifying air quality and climate change impacts as part of the preparation of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents. In addition, individual districts may rely on the model’s emission estimates to show compliance with local agency rules.

CalEEMod utilizes widely accepted methodologies for estimating emissions combined with default data that can be used when site-specific information is not available. Sources of these methodologies and default data include but are not limited to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) AP-42 emission factors, California Air Resources Board (CARB) vehicle emission models, studies commissioned by California agencies such as the California Energy Commission (CEC) and CalRecycle. In addition, some local air districts provided customized values for their default data and existing regulation methodologies for use for projects located in their jurisdictions. When no customized information was provided, and no regional differences were defined for local air districts, state-wide default values were utilized. Since resource data and regulations are constantly changing, local agencies should be consulted to determine whether there are any circumstances when updated values should be used in place of the defaults currently incorporated into CalEEMod. A majority of CalEEMod’s default data associated with locations and land use are derived from surveys of existing land uses. For any project that substantially deviates from the types and features included in the surveys, sitespecific data that are supported by substantial evidence should be used, if available.

The model provides several opportunities for the user to change the defaults in the model; however, users are required to provide justification for all changes made to the default settings (e.g., reference more appropriate data sources) in the Remarks box provided at the bottom of the screen before the user will be able to proceed to the next screen.

Further, the user should make every effort to ensure that correct data is entered, including the choice and percent reduction of mitigation most applicable to the land use project being evaluated.

1.1 Purpose of Model
CalEEMod provides a simple platform to calculate both construction emissions and operational emissions from a land use project. It can calculate both the daily maximum and annual average for criteria pollutants as well as annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The output from these calculations can be used in the preparation of air quality and GHG analyses in CEQA documents such as Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) 423
USER’S GUIDE
2 May 2021
and Negative Declarations. For projects located in the jurisdiction of San Luis Obispo APCD, the model can also calculate and report the sum of reactive organic gas (ROG) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions on a rolling quarterly basis for the construction phase.

In addition, CalEEMod contains default values for estimating water and energy use which may be useful for preparing hydrology and energy analyses in other sections of a CEQA document. Specifically, the model can aid the user by conducting the following calculations:
• Short-term construction emissions associated with the demolition, site preparation, grading, building, coating, and paving from the following sources:
– Off-road construction equipment;
– On-road mobile equipment associated with workers, vendors, and hauling; – Fugitive dust associated with grading, demolition, truck loading, and on-road vehicles traveling along paved and unpaved roads. (Fugitive dust from windblown sources such as storage piles and inactive disturbed areas, as well as fugitive dust from off-road vehicle travel, are not quantified in CalEEMod, which is consistent with approaches taken in other comprehensive models.)
– Architectural coating activities (including the painting/striping of parking lots) and paving (ROG).
• Operational emissions for fully built-out land use development from the following sources:
– On-road mobile vehicle traffic generated by the land uses; – Fugitive dust associated with roads;
– Architectural coating activities (ROG);
– Off-road equipment (e.g., forklifts, cranes) used during operation; – Landscaping equipment;
– Emergency generators, fire pumps, and process boilers; – Use of consumer products, parking lot degreasers, fertilizers/pesticides, and cleaning supplies (ROG);
– Wood stoves and hearth usage;
– Natural gas usage in the buildings;
– Electricity usage in the buildings (GHG only);
– Electricity usage from lighting in parking lots and lighting, ventilation and elevators in parking structures;
– Water usage per land use (GHG only); and,
– Solid waste disposal per land use (GHG only).
424
USER’S GUIDE
3 May 2021
• One-time vegetation sequestration changes
– Permanent vegetation land use changes
– New tree plantings
• Mitigation adjustments to both short-term construction and operational emissions.

Several of the mitigation measures described in CAPCOA’s Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures1 have been incorporated into CalEEMod.

1 Available at: http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf 425
USER’S GUIDE
4 May 2021
2 Program Installation
The CalEEMod program is distributed and maintained by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association2. The most recent version can be downloaded from www.caleemod.com.

2.1 Operating System Requirements
CalEEMod was programmed using Microsoft SQL Compact Edition in conjunction with a Visual Basic Graphical User Interface (GUI). CalEEMod Version 2020.4 requires the following system requirements:
• Microsoft Windows XP, Vista, 7, 8, or 10 Operating System with Microsoft .NET Framework 4 or higher
• Microsoft SQL Server Compact 4.0
• Microsoft Access Database Engine 2010 Redistributable, 32-bit • 300 Mb hard drive space available

2.2 Installation Procedures
To install CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0:

1. Ensure that the required Microsoft .Net framework is installed on the computer. Microsoft .Net Framework 4.0 is available free from Microsoft at: https://www.microsoft.com/enus/download/details.aspx?id=17851. Once the file is downloaded, unzip the file anywhere onto the computer and run the installation file (setup.exe) and follow the instructions on Microsoft’s website to locate the appropriate .msi file.

2. During the installation, Microsoft SQL Server Compact 4.0 will be automatically installed.

However, if the automatic installation fails, visit www.caleemod.com, click on the Download Model tab, and select the appropriate .exe file to be installed on the computer.

For 32-bit computers, double click on SSCERuntime_x86-ENU.exe to install the file. For a 64-bit computer, double click on SSCERuntime_x64-ENU.exe to install the file.

3. During the installation, 32-bit Microsoft Access Database Engine 2010 Redistributable will be automatically installed.

However, if the automatic installation fails, go to https://www.microsoft.com/enus/download/details.aspx?id=13255&751be11f-ede8-5a0c-058c-2ee190a24fa6=True, click on Download, select “AccessDatabaseEngine.exe” (25.3 MB), and click on Next.

Once this file is downloaded, double click on “AccessDatabaseEngine.exe” file and follow the instructions to finish the installation.

If the version of Microsoft Office is 64-bit, the 32-bit Microsoft Access Database Engine 2010 Redistributable file can be installed in passive mode by following the instructions below:

2 CalEEMod® 2021 All Rights Reserved by California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 426
USER’S GUIDE
5 May 2021
a) Go to the C: drive - - > Create a new folder “MADE” - - > Copy the 32-bit Microsoft Access Database Engine 2010 Redistributable
(AccessDatabaseEngine.exe) installer to that folder
b) Start a command prompt as an administrator: Click Start - - > In the Start Search box, type cmd, and then press CTRL+SHIFT+ENTER
c) In Administrator: Command Prompt window - - > Type in “cd C:\MADE” and press ENTER
d) Type in “AccessDatabaseEngine.exe /passive” and press ENTER e) See the following screenshot for Steps 3 c) and d)
f) 32-bit Microsoft Access Database Engine 2010 Redistributable should be installed automatically.

4. Visit www.CalEEMod.com, click on the Download Model tab, download the installation file (CalEEMod.WixSetup.Bootstrapper_2020.4.0.29.exe), click on the file and follow the instructions. Screenshots of the CalEEMod Windows Installer XML (WiX) Setup Wizard are provided at the end of this section (see pp.6-9).

5. visit www.caleemod.com, click on the Download Model tab

6. CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0 can be installed side by side with Version 2016.3.2 provided that each version is installed in different folders.

For 32-bit computers, the default directory for CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 is C:\Program Files\CAPCOA\CalEEMod; for 64-bit computers, the default directory for CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 is C:\Program Files (x86)\CAPCOA\CalEEMod. 427
USER’S GUIDE
6 May 2021
For 32-bit computers, the default directory for CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0 is C:\Program Files\CAPCOA\CalEEMod2020.4.0; for 64-bit computers, the default directory for CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0 is C:\Program Files (x86)\CAPCOA\CalEEMod2020.4.0. Click Next until the installation has completed, then click Finish to exit the installer.

7. If difficulty is encountered when installing CalEEMod (e.g., network firewalls may prevent successful downloading of the model, especially for computers connected to an intranet or other type of network system), verify that the appropriate user privileges are activated and that the computer meets the minimum operating system requirements.

8. The installation process is completed when the CAPCOA CalEEMod 2020.4.0 icon appear in two locations: 1) on the desktop; and 2) in the Start, Programs menu. 428
USER’S GUIDE
7 May 2021
429
USER’S GUIDE
8 May 2021
430
USER’S GUIDE
9 May 2021
431
USER’S GUIDE
10 May 2021

2.3 Starting CalEEMod
To open the model, double click on the CAPCOA CalEEMod2020.4.0 icon from the desktop or select the CAPCOA CalEEMod2020.4.0 program from the Start, Programs menu. 432
USER’S GUIDE
11 May 2021
3 Using CalEEMod

3.1 Key Features
CalEEMod is comprised of a series of screens with each designed with an individual purpose to define features of the project such as project characteristics, construction schedule and equipment, operational activity, mitigation measures, etc. The user will need to input basic information about the project such as location, land use type(s) (e.g., residential, commercial, retail, etc.) and project size, and the model will populate subsequent screens with pre-determined defaults. The user may override the defaults to input more accurate, project-specific information as appropriate.

The following screenshot highlights some key features in CalEEMod which are described in more detail below:

1. Menu Bar: A drop down menu bar is found on all screens. For example, the Home menu controls file features such as New Project, Open Project, Save Project, and Save As Project. The Help menu will link to appropriate information for the relevant screen from this User’s Guide. All of the other menus will allow navigation between the screens in any order.

1. Menu Bar

2. Screen Name

7. Cascade Default

3. Default Button

4. Remarks Box

5. Next Button

6. Data Grid
433
USER’S GUIDE
12 May 2021

2. Screen Name: Identifies the name of the current screen.

3. Default Button: This button allows the user to restore the program defaults after the user has changed any default values on the screen. User-entered values will be highlighted in yellow to clearly indicate the defaults that have been changed. The user will be prompted to specify whether the default should be restored for the current or last cell on the screen or for the entire screen. The Import csv option will allow the user to load a .csv file for a specific data grid. Clicking on the Undo button will allow the user to cancel or undo the previous action.

4. Remarks: This section is located at the bottom of each screen and it requires the user to enter comments regarding any defaults that have been replaced with user-defined values.

The Remarks section is meant to assist project reviewers to determine or assess the justification for user-defined values entered.

5. Next Button: When the user clicks on this button, the next sequential screen will appear.

As the user progresses through the model, later screens will also show a Previous button that will take the user to the previous screen.

6. Data Grid: This is a common box where values for the variables defined across the top are to be filled in with data. The number of rows will automatically be adjusted based on the number of rows of information required to define the information. On some data grids, the last row may have an asterisk (*) and once the user begins adding information to this row, a new row will be added at the end. To delete a row, select the desired row to delete, and hit the delete button on your keyboard. (Deleting information is generally allowed unless the data grid contains a fixed list such as the Pollutant selection list.) Scroll bars (both horizontal and vertical) may also occur on some data grids, as appropriate.

7. Cascade Defaults: CalEEMod has a feature that freezes the automatic downloading of the programmed defaults. Each input screen displays a box called Cascade Default which will be automatically checked to populate defaults in future screens. However, if user unchecks the Cascade Default box, no defaults will be populated in subsequent screens and the user will need to input project-specific data. Unless all the necessary input parameters required for a proper analysis are known, the user should run the model at least once with “Cascade Default” button checked to allow the defaults to be populated.

Then, if the user would like to change the project’s parameters (e.g., number of dwelling units, building square footage, etc.) without cascading new defaults in later screens, then the user should uncheck the Cascade Default box when in the Land Use screen. This feature may be helpful when the defaults are replaced with project-specific information (e.g., construction schedule, construction equipment, water use, energy use, etc.) and the user would like to evaluate different project scenarios with the same basic project information (e.g., land use type, location, etc.). In addition, by unchecking the Cascade Default box, the following will occur:
• The defaults in ALL subsequent screens will be frozen. • Any changes that are made to screens that follow the Land Use screen (e.g., adding a new construction phase) will not cascade defaults relating to that change or add new tabs (e.g., trips and VMT, dust material movement). Thus, the user will need to manually input project-specific information in order for the impacts to be calculated. 434
USER’S GUIDE
13 May 2021
• If any changes to land use type (e.g., from single family housing to a hospital) are made, the subsequent screens will not reflect the new land use type causing some incorrect calculations (e.g., impacts from energy and water use) to be performed.

When changing or adding a land use type, the user should click on the Cascade Default button so the future screens will be populated with appropriate defaults and the correct calculations specific to the changed or added land use type will occur.

3.2 Home
The Home tab on the file menu bar that controls the file saving and opening features. The available options are:
• New Project
• Open Project
• Save
• Save As
• Exit
The user should select Open Project to open a project that has been previously created and saved or New Project to create a new project. Note that opening a previously saved project will remove any information that has been entered into the GUI unless it has been saved to a file. Save will save the currently loaded project database as a Microsoft Excel file and this file can be closed, and then re-opened later. Save As will allow the user to change the name of the saved project file. Exit will close CalEEMod. The Microsoft Excel file can be edited following the format of the save file to quickly make edits outside of the Graphical User Interface (GUI) but the user will still need to use the GUI in order to report the results. This can be most useful in making changes to construction lists. Data for individual tabs can be uploaded as a .csv file in various places in CalEEMod to minimize the data entry.

3.3 Defining a Project
To define a project, the user must enter all information on both the Project Characteristics screen and the Land Use screen. After entering information on these two screens, CalEEMod will populate all the other information required to calculate unmitigated construction (unless there is demolition, grading, or site preparation) and operation emissions using default data. If demolition, grading, and/or site preparation activities are part of the project, then the user will need to enter additional information on the appropriate construction screens, including but not limited to, the amount of material to be demolished and transported to or from the site. If site-specific information is not needed for the project, the user can skip this part and jump to the Mitigation screen and enter mitigation measures. After completing the Mitigation screen, the user can proceed to the Reporting screen to select the type of report to be generated for the project.

3.4 Altering Default Data
CalEEMod was designed with default assumptions supported by substantial evidence to the extent available at the time of programming. The functionality and content of CalEEMod is based on fully adopted methods and data. However, CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site- or project-specific information, when available, provided that 435
USER’S GUIDE
14 May 2021
the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA. If the user chooses to modify any defaults, an explanation will be required in the Remarks box found at the bottom of the screen to justify and support the modification before the user will be able to proceed to the next screen. Modifications to defaults and the explanations are noted in the output report.

Comments in the Remarks box are also included in the report and alert reviewers of modifications to the defaults. Comments are important because they show the user’s justification for the modifications, which allows the reviewers the ability to determine whether the modifications are appropriate and sufficiently justified.

3.5 Mitigation
Common construction mitigation measures that impact the calculations in CalEEMod have been incorporated as options for the user to select. It is important to note that compliance with fugitive dust rules vary widely by district and include requirements to reduce dust. Even though the fugitive dust rules contain requirements that when implemented, have the effect of mitigating dust emissions, these requirements are not considered to be mitigation per se. For these reasons, requirements such as percentage adjustments to fugitive dust rules have not been incorporated into the unmitigated fugitive dust calculations.

Several mitigation measures from CAPCOA’s Quantifying Greenhouse Mitigation Measures have been incorporated including combinations and caps when using multiple mitigation measures.

CalEEMod was designed to include typical mitigation measures that are some of the more effective measures available to development projects. If mitigation measures are not available as options in CalEEMod, the user can alter the inputs in the program to adjust to account for mitigation measures that may be less common. This will require separate runs of CalEEMod files to properly account for unmitigated and mitigated scenarios. For more details regarding mitigation, see Subchapter 4.11.

3.6 Reporting
The Reporting tab allows the user to select the type of report (e.g., annual, winter or summer) to present the results of the calculations. The reports can be viewed on screen and then saved as either a Microsoft Excel file or a .pdf file. For more details regarding reporting, see Subchapter

4.11. 436
USER’S GUIDE
15 May 2021
4 Detailed Program Screens

4.1 Project Characteristics
The Project Characteristics screen is starting point where the user enters the project name, project location, and selects utility provider, climate zone, and pollutants to be analyzed. The information entered on this screen will trigger project appropriate default data to populate subsequent screens. Any changes entered on this screen will override any previously entered user-defined data and the corresponding default data. The project name will appear in the reports.

Each of the information categories on this screen are described in more detail below.

Project Location
To define the region where the project is located, the user is given the option to select Air District, Air Basin, County, or Statewide. The second drop down box will reveal a list of specific locations to the region selected. If the user selects County, It is important to note that there may be some counties that are shared by multiple Air Districts, Air Basins or District-specific sub-regions and the default values (e.g., on-road vehicle emissions, trip lengths, water supply and treatment electricity use, solid waste disposal rates, amount of paved roads, days of landscaping equipment use, architectural coating emissions, and hearth usage) may vary accordingly. Thus, if the user selects County, the user may also be prompted to select the sub-county area. If you are uncertain about what region to choose for your project location, consult your lead agency. See notes in Section 4.3.5 regarding EMFAC subarea.

Wind Speed and Precipitation Frequency
Selection of project location will automatically fill in the default wind speed and precipitation frequency. The user can also choose to override this information and enter a different value. The wind speed, in meters per second (m/s), is used in the fugitive dust calculations. Precipitation frequency, e.g. the number of days per year with a precipitation amount measuring greater than

0.01 inches in one day, is used in the fugitive dust calculations.

Climate Zone
Selection of project location will restrict the climate zones available for the user to choose from based on the climate zones in the project location. The climate zones that have been programmed into CalEEMod are based on the California Energy Commission’s (CEC) Forecasting Climate Zones, which are different from the Title 24 Building Climate Zones. The user should determine the correct climate zone by either referring to the figure below or by clicking on the orange button that says “CEC Climate Zone Forecasting Look-up” on the Project Characteristics screen. In addition, the user may also determine the climate zone by city or zip code from the look up tables in Appendix F.
437
USER’S GUIDE
16 May 2021
CEC Forecasting Climate Zone Look-up Button
CalEEMod utilizes the Forecasting Climate Zones because the baseline data in the 2002 California Commercial End Use Survey (CEUS) and 2009 Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS), upon which CalEEMod relies, are categorized in this manner. Further information on the calculation of building energy usage, including the application of data specific to the Forecasting Climate Zones, is contained in Appendix E.
438
USER’S GUIDE
17 May 2021
CEC Forecasting Climate Zones3, 4

3 Adapted from Figure ES-2 of CEC. 2010. Residential Appliance Saturation Survey. Available at:
https://planning.lacity.org/eir/CrossroadsHwd/deir/files/references/C18.pdf 4 White spaces represent areas served by other electric utilities not included in survey. 439
USER’S GUIDE
18 May 2021
Land Use Setting
The Land Use Setting tab is where the user indicates whether the project is located in a rural or urban setting. The user should contact the local air district for the region where the project is located for guidance on the appropriate Land Use Setting to select.

Start of Construction
To indicate when construction of the project will begin, the user will need to insert a date in the Start of Construction field. The date when construction will start triggers a rolling calendar that starts with the construction start date and follows by various construction phases that will be populated with default date ranges in the Construction screen.

Operational Year
CalEEMod is designed to require the user to select the first year when full project operation is expected to begin. CalEEMod relies on the initial operational year to apply the appropriate emission factors in all operational module calculations. CalEEMod can accommodate the following years for the initial operational year: 2000, 2005, 2010-2035, 2040, 2045, and 2050.

This wide range of dates allows the user to analyze a project for an operational year that occurs in the past or further into the future. It is important to note that the selection of years is limited to minimize the file size associated with the vehicle emission factors associated with each operational year. For a project that consists of multiple phases with operation activities occurring over multiple years, the user is recommended to run the model multiple times for the various input parameters for each operational year.

EMFAC2017 Off-Model Adjustment Factors
CalEEMod2020.4.0 offers a new feature which allows the user to analyze a project by either applying the original EMFAC2017 emission factors adopted by CARB or the modified EMFAC2017 emission factors which include with off-model adjustments applied to certain gasoline-fueled light duty and medium duty vehicles (EMFAC vehicle codes: LDA, LDT1, LDT2, 440
USER’S GUIDE
19 May 2021
and MDV) in accordance with Part One of the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rules and actions adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 2020 5. The off-model adjustment factors apply to the following pollutants: NOx, TOG, ROG, PM10, PM2.5 and CO. CARB’s guidance has indicated that the offmodel adjustment factor for TOG can be applied to ROG, and the off-model adjustment factor for PM can be applied to PM10 and PM2.5.
• If the box is checked, off-model adjustment factors will be applied to both construction emissions and operational emissions for the aforementioned gasoline-fueled light duty and medium duty vehicles; if the box is not checked, the original EMFAC2017 emission factors will be applied for all vehicle classes, without any off-model adjustments.

Utility Company
From the drop-down list, the user will need to select the appropriate utility company that will serve the project location. When a specific utility is selected, the intensity factors for CO2, CH4 and N2O will be automatically populated with defaults applicable to the specified utility. However, if the utility for the project is not in the drop-down list, the user may select User Defined and the user will need to manually enter the various intensity factors. In addition, the user will need to identify the utility in the Remarks section.

The intensity factors are used in various modules to calculate the GHG emissions associated with electricity use. The default values are based on CARB’s Local Government Operations Protocol (LGO)6for CO2, updated public utility protocols for CO2, and E-Grid values for CH4 and N2O. Each default CO2 intensity factor is based on the latest reporting year available for each utility. Appendix D, Table 1.2 provides the default CO2 intensity factor and reporting year from which the factor was identified for each utility identified in the drop-down list. As with other defaults in the model, if a new intensity factor is identified before the defaults in CalEEMod are updated, the user may override the default and provide justification for the change in the Remarks section at the bottom of the Project Characteristics screen.

Pollutants
CalEEMod provides a list of pollutants with adjacent check boxes for the user to select. Upon starting a new project, all the boxes are automatically checked and if the boxes remain checked, all pollutants will be quantified and identified in the reports. If user unchecks any of the boxes, the unchecked pollutants will be excluded from the calculations and the reports. Some of the pollutants may overlap other identified pollutants. For example, carbon dioxide (CO2) is identified on its own, and it is separated into biogenic and non-biogenic categories. In addition, CO2 Equivalent GHGs represents, all CO2 emissions plus methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) as adjusted by their corresponding Global Warming Potential (GWP) weighted value. The GWPs are based on the 2007 IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) 7 , and are consistent with 2014
CARB’s Scoping Plan Update8.

5 Available at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/emfac_off_model_adjustment_factors_final_draft.pdf； https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/emfac_off_model_co2_adjustment_factors_06262020-final.pdf 6 Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/protocols/localgov/localgov.htm 7 Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4_syr_full_report.pdf 8 Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/updatedscopingplan2013.htm 441
USER’S GUIDE
20 May 2021
Remarks
As previously explained in Subchapter 3.4, if the user chooses to modify any defaults, the user will be required to provide an explanation or justification in the Remarks section for incorporating user defined (e.g., non-default) values before the user will be able to proceed to the next screen.

Any remarks that are entered will be included in the reports and will assist a reviewer in understanding the reasons for a change in the default value (e.g., new trip rate based on a projectspecific traffic study conducted by traffic engineers).

4.2 Land Use
The Land Use screen is where the user identifies the land use(s) that will occur at the project site.

The data in the land use types and subtypes, unit amounts, size metric, lot acreage, square feet and population fields determine the default variables that are used in the calculations. It is important to note that for any project that includes a city park, golf course, or recreational swimming pool land use, the user will be prompted to enter the square footage of the buildings associated with these land uses (e.g., restrooms/changing rooms, pro-shop, etc.). By excluding the entire lot size for these three land use types, and instead only using the square footage of the buildings, the calculations for consumer product use will provide a more accurate representation of how and where these materials are used and avoid incorrectly attributing consumer products use to greenspaces and pool water. For more information on the calculations for consumer product use, see Subchapter 4.5, Section 4.5.2.
442
USER’S GUIDE
21 May 2021
Land Use Type
The Land Use Type tab allows the user to select any of the following primary land use types from a drop-down list: Commercial, Educational, Industrial, Parking, Recreational, Residential, and Retail. The 63 different land use types were chosen for inclusion in CalEEMod because each has an established trip rate, which is critical for mobile source calculations. The trip generation data are from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition.9 CalEEMod specifically designates parking areas as a separate land use rather than as a part of an associated non-residential land use (e.g., commercial buildings, retail facilities, etc.). However, no separate parking land use for a driveway or garage needs to be identified for residential land uses because parking is already included in the calculation. For more information on how CalEEMod treats parking based on the footprint and lot acreage of residential and non-residential land uses, please refer to the following figure. As depicted, the lot acreage of a residential land use includes the parking and building footprint. For non-residential land uses, the lot acreage is the same as the building footprint, so parking needs to be entered as a separate land use.

9 ITE Technical Resources website: https://www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/trip-and-parking-generation/ 443
USER’S GUIDE
22 May 2021
For the parking land use subtype, two primary options are available: parking lot or parking structure (e.g., garage). There are four types of parking structures: 1) enclosed; 2) enclosed with an elevator; 3) unenclosed; and, 4) unenclosed with an elevator. The reason for these specific descriptions is so that the model properly accounts for energy impacts associated with ventilation and elevator operations.

For land use subtypes that are not listed (e.g., roads, underground parking, pipelines, etc.) or that do not accurately represent the project being analyzed, each land use subtype has a User Defined option that the user can select. If a User Defined land use subtype is selected, there is no default data (including size metric) that will automatically populate the data fields. Instead, the user will need to manually enter the unit amount, size metric, lot acreage, etc. If these fields are left blank, no emissions will be calculated for the User Defined land use subtype. Also, whatever size metric (e.g., per acre, per 1000 square foot, etc.) the user chooses for the User Defined land use subtype needs to be consistently applied to all subsequent default values (e.g., gallons of water used per acre or per 1000 square foot). An alternative approach to entering a User Defined land use subtype would be to choose a land use subtype that most closely fits the project and allow the model to populate the data fields with the defaults. Then, the user can go back through the model and modify the defaults with any known specific project information and enter the required Remarks to explain why the defaults are modified.

Land Use Subtype
63 land use subtypes have been included in CalEEMod and each has an established trip rate that is used for calculating mobile source emissions. By tabbing over to the next column in a row, the user can select a variety of land use subtypes. The user also has the option to select a User Defined land use subtype; however, as explained previously, there is no default data (including size metric) that will automatically populate the data fields. Instead, the user will need to manually enter the unit amount, size metric, lot acreage, etc. Land use subtypes are based primarily on the land use definitions used for (mobile source) trip generation rate information from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Note that the trip generation rates included in CalEEMod are a subset of a larger compilation of data that can be obtained from ITE.10 In some cases, similar generalized land uses or surrogate data were mapped to some land use subtypes to generate the default data needed for various modules.

10 ITE Technical Resource webpage: https://www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/trip-and-parking-generation/ 444
USER’S GUIDE
23 May 2021
Table 1: Source of Trip Rates for Land Use Subtypes
Land Use Subtype Description
Land Use Code and
Source

RESIDENTIAL
Apartments High
Rise
High-rise apartments are units located in rental buildings that have more than 10 levels and most likely have one
or more elevators.
222, ITE 10th
Apartments Low
Rise
Low-rise apartments are units located in rental buildings that have 1-2 levels. 220, ITE 10th
Apartments Mid
Rise
Mid-rise apartments in rental buildings that have
between 3 and 10 levels. 221, ITE 10th
Condo/Townhouse These are ownership units that have at least one other owned unit within the same building structure.
220, ITE 10th
Condo/Townhouse
High Rise
These are ownership units that have three or more
levels. 221, ITE 10th
Congregate Care
(Assisted Living)
These facilities are independent living developments that provide centralized amenities such as dining,
housekeeping, transportation and organized
social/recreational activities. Limited medical services may or may not be provided.
254, ITE 10th
Mobile Home Park
Mobile home parks consist of manufactured homes that
are sited and installed on permanent foundations and
typically have community facilities such as recreation
rooms, swimming pools and laundry facilities.
240, ITE 10th
Retirement
Community
These communities provide multiple elements of senior
adult living. Housing options may include various
combinations of senior adult housing, congregate care,
assisted living, and skilled nursing care aimed at
allowing the residents to live in one community as their medical needs change.
255, ITE 10th
Single Family
Housing
All single-family detached homes on individual lots
typical of a suburban subdivision 210, ITE 10th

EDUCATIONAL
Day-Care Center
A day care center is a facility where care for pre-school age children is provided, normally during the daytime
hours. Day care facilities generally include classrooms, offices, eating areas and playgrounds.
565, ITE 10th
Elementary School
Elementary schools typically serve students attending
kindergarten through the fifth or sixth grade. They are usually centrally located in residential communities to facilitate student access and have no student drivers.
520, ITE 10th
High School High schools serve students who have completed middle or junior high school. 530, ITE 10th
Junior College (2Yr) This land use includes two-year junior, community, or technical colleges.
540, ITE 10th
445
USER’S GUIDE
24 May 2021
Table 1: Source of Trip Rates for Land Use Subtypes
Land Use Subtype Description
Land Use Code and
Source
Junior High School Junior High schools serve students who have completed elementary school and have not yet entered high school. 522, ITE 10th
Library A library is a facility that consists of shelved books; reading rooms or areas; and sometimes meeting rooms. 590, ITE 10th Place of Worship
A place of worship is a building in which public worship (religious) services are held (e.g., church, synagogue, mosque, etc.). A place of worship is comprised of an
assembly hall or sanctuary; it may also house meeting
rooms, classrooms and occasionally dining catering or
party facilities.
560, ITE 10th
University/College
(4Yr)
This land use includes four-year universities or colleges that may or may not offer graduate programs.
550, ITE 9th
(Saturday) and 10th
(Weekday)

RECREATIONAL
Arena
Arenas are large indoor structures in which spectator
events are held. These events vary from professional ice hockey and basketball to non-sporting events such as
concerts, shows, or religious services. Arenas generally have large parking facilities, except when located in or around the downtown of a large city.
460, ITE 9th
City Park City parks are owned and operated by a city. 411, ITE 10th Fast Food
Restaurant W/O
Drive Thru
This land use includes fast-food restaurants without
drive-through windows. Patrons generally order at a
cash register and pay before they eat.
933, ITE 10th
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
This category includes fast-food restaurants with drivethrough windows. 934, ITE 10th Golf Course
Golf courses include 9-, 18-, 27- and 36-hole courses.

Some sites may also have driving ranges and
clubhouses with a pro shop, restaurant, lounge and
banquet facilities.
430, ITE 10th
Health Club
These are privately-owned facilities that primarily focus on individual fitness or training. Typically, they provide exercise classes; weightlifting, fitness and gymnastics equipment; spas; locker rooms; and small restaurants or snack bars.
492, ITE 9
th
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
This land use consists of sit-down, full-service eating establishments with turnover rates of approximately one hour or less. This type of restaurant is usually
moderately priced and frequently belongs to a restaurant chain.
932, ITE 10th
Hotel
Hotels are places of lodging that provide sleeping
accommodations and supporting facilities such as
restaurants; cocktail lounges; meeting and banquet
rooms or convention facilities; limited recreational
facilities and other retail and service shops.
310, ITE 10th
446
USER’S GUIDE
25 May 2021
Table 1: Source of Trip Rates for Land Use Subtypes
Land Use Subtype Description
Land Use Code and
Source
Motel
Motels are places of lodging that provide sleeping
accommodations and often a restaurant. Motels
generally offer free on-site parking and provide little or no meeting space and few supporting facilities.
320, ITE 10th
Movie Theater (No
Matinee)
Movie theaters consist of audience seating, single or
multiple screens and auditoriums, a lobby and a
refreshment stand. Movie theaters without matinees
show movies on weekday evenings and weekends only;
there are no weekday daytime showings.
444, ITE 10th
Quality Restaurant
This land use consists of high quality, full-service eating establishments with typical turnover rates of at least one hour or longer. Quality restaurants generally do not
serve breakfast, some do not serve lunch; all serve
dinner. This type of restaurant usually requires
reservations and is generally not part of a chain. Patrons commonly wait to be seated, are served by a waiter,
order from menus and pay for meals after they eat.
931, ITE 10th
Racquet Club
These are privately-owned facilities that primarily cater to racquet sports. 491, ITE 9th
Recreational
Swimming Pool
This is a typical recreational swimming pool that may be associated with community centers, parks, swim clubs,
etc.
495, ITE 10th

PARKING
Enclosed Parking
Structure
This is an enclosed parking structure that may be above or below ground. It is not covered in asphalt. This land use will require lighting and ventilation, and will have more than one floor with no elevator.

N/A
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
This is an enclosed parking structure that may be above or below ground. It is not covered in asphalt. This land use will require lighting and ventilation, and will have more than one floor with an elevator.

N/A
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
This is an asphalt area not used as a parking lot (e.g., long driveway, basketball court, etc.)
N/A
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
This is a non-asphalt area (e.g., equipment foundation, loading dock area, etc.).

N/A
Parking Lot This is a typical single surface parking lot typically covered with asphalt. This land use will require lighting.

N/A
Unenclosed Parking
Structure
This is an unenclosed parking structure that may be
above or below ground. It is not covered in asphalt. This land use will require lighting but not ventilation. It will have more than one floor with no elevator.

N/A
Unenclosed Parking
with Elevator
This is an unenclosed parking structure that may be
above or below ground. It is not covered in asphalt. This land use will require lighting but not ventilation. It will have more than one floor with an elevator.

N/A
447
USER’S GUIDE
26 May 2021
Table 1: Source of Trip Rates for Land Use Subtypes
Land Use Subtype Description
Land Use Code and
Source
RETAIL
Automobile Care
Center
An automobile care center houses numerous businesses
that provide automobile-related services, such as repair and servicing; stereo installation; and seat cover
upholstering.
942, ITE 10th
Convenience
Market (24 Hour)
These markets sell convenience foods, newspapers,
magazines and often beer and wine. They do not sell or
dispense motor vehicle fuels (e.g., gasoline and diesel). 851, ITE 10th
Convenience
Market with Gas
Pumps
These markets sell or dispense motor vehicle fuels (e.g., gasoline and diesel), convenience foods, newspapers,
magazines and often beer and wine. This includes
convenience markets with motor vehicle fueling
dispensers where the primary business is the selling of convenience items, not the fueling of motor vehicles.
853, ITE 10th
Discount Club
A discount club is a discount store or warehouse where
shoppers pay a membership fee to take advantage of
discounted prices on a wide variety of items such as
food, clothing, tires and appliances. Many items are sold in large quantities or in bulk.
857, ITE 10th
Electronic
Superstore
These are free-standing facilities that specialize in the sale of electronic merchandise. 863, ITE 10
th
Free-Standing
Discount Store
Discount stores offer centralized cashiering and sell
products that are advertised at discount prices. These
stores offer a variety of customer services and maintain long store hours seven days a week.
815, ITE 10th
Free-Standing
Discount Superstore
The discount superstore is similar to the free-standing discount stores with the addition that they also contain a full-service grocery department under the same roof that shares entrances and exits with the discount store area. 813, ITE 10th
Gasoline/Service
Station
This land use includes service stations where the
primary business is the fueling of motor vehicles. They may also have ancillary facilities for servicing and
repairing motor vehicles.
944, ITE 10th
Hardware/Paint
Store
These stores sell hardware and paint supplies and are
generally free-standing buildings. 816, ITE 10th
Home Improvement
Superstore
These are free-standing facilities that specialize in the sale of home improvement merchandise.
862, ITE 10th
Regional Shopping
Center
A shopping center is an integrated group of commercial
establishments that is planned, developed, owned and
managed as a unit. A shopping center's composition is
related to its market area in terms of size, location and type of store.
820, ITE 10th
Strip Mall Small strip shopping centers contain a variety of retail shops and specialize in quality apparel, hard goods and 826, ITE 9th 448
USER’S GUIDE
27 May 2021
Table 1: Source of Trip Rates for Land Use Subtypes
Land Use Subtype Description
Land Use Code and
Source
services such as real estate offices, dance studios,
florists and small restaurants.

Supermarket
Supermarkets are free-standing retail stores selling a
complete assortment of food: food preparation and
wrapping materials; and household, cleaning items.

Supermarkets may also contain the following products
and services: ATMs, automobile supplies, bakeries,
books and magazines, dry cleaning, floral arrangements, greeting cards, limited-service banks, photo centers,
pharmacies and video rental areas.
850, ITE 10th

COMMERCIAL
Bank (With DriveThrough)
Drive-in banks provide banking facilities for motorists who conduct financial transactions from their vehicles; many also serve patrons who walk into the building.
912, ITE 10th
General Office
Building
A general office building houses multiple tenants where affairs of businesses commercial or industrial
organizations or professional persons or firms are
conducted. If information is known about individual
buildings, it is suggested that this land use be used
instead of the more generic office park.
710, ITE 10th
Government (Civic
Center)
A group of government buildings that are interconnected by pedestrian walkways. 733, ITE 10th
Government Office
Building
This is an individual building containing either the entire function or simply one agency of a city, county, state, federal, or other governmental unit.
730, ITE 10th
Hospital
A hospital is any institution where medical or surgical care and overnight accommodations are provided to
non-ambulatory and ambulatory patients. However, it
does not refer to medical clinics or nursing homes.
610, ITE 10th
Medical Office
Building
This is a facility that provides diagnoses and outpatient care on a routine basis but is unable to provide
prolonged in-house medical and surgical care. One or
more private physicians or dentists generally operate this type of facility.
720, ITE 10th
Office Park
Office parks are usually suburban subdivisions or
planned unit developments containing general office
buildings and support services, such as banks,
restaurants and service stations, arranged in a park-or campus-like atmosphere. This should be used if details
on individual buildings are not available.
750, ITE 10th
449
USER’S GUIDE
28 May 2021
Table 1: Source of Trip Rates for Land Use Subtypes
Land Use Subtype Description
Land Use Code and
Source
Pharmacy/Drugstore
W/O Drive Thru
These are retail facilities that primarily sell prescription and non-prescription drugs. These facilities may also sell cosmetics, toiletries, medications, stationery, personal care products, limited food products and general
merchandise. The drug stores in this category do not
contain drive-through windows.
880, ITE 10th
Pharmacy/Drugstore
with Drive Thru
These are retail facilities that primarily sell prescription and non-prescription drugs. These facilities may also sell cosmetics, toiletries, medications, stationery, personal care products, limited food products and general
merchandise. The drug stores in this category contain
drive-through windows.
881, ITE 10th
Research &
Development
R&D centers are facilities devoted almost exclusively to R&D activities. The range of specific types of businesses contained in this land use category varies significantly.

R&D centers may contain offices and light fabrication
areas.
760, ITE 10th

INDUSTRIAL
General Heavy
Industry
Heavy industrial facilities usually have a high number of employees per industrial plant and are generally limited to the manufacturing of large items.
140, ITE 10th
General Light
Industry
Light industrial facilities are free-standing facilities devoted to a single use. The facilities have an emphasis on activities other than manufacturing and typically have minimal office space. Typical light industrial activities include printing, material testing and assembly of data processing equipment. For CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0,
this land use subtype must be less than 50,000 square
feet.
11 110, ITE 10th
Industrial Park
Industrial parks contain several industrial or related
facilities. They are characterized by a mix of
manufacturing, service and warehouse facilities with a
wide variation in the proportion of each type of use from one location to another. Many industrial parks contain
highly diversified facilities.
130, ITE 10th
Manufacturing
Manufacturing facilities are areas where the primary
activity is the conversion of raw materials or parts into finished products. It generally also has office,
warehouse, and R&D functions at the site.
140, ITE 10th
Refrigerated
WarehouseNo Rail
This is a warehouse that has refrigeration but no rail
spur.
157, ITE 10th
Refrigerated
Warehouse-Rail This is a warehouse that has refrigeration and a rail spur. 157, ITE 10th

11 For a project with a lot size greater than 50,000 square feet, the user will need to select a different land use type such as general heavy industry, industrial park, or manufacturing. 450
USER’S GUIDE
29 May 2021
Table 1: Source of Trip Rates for Land Use Subtypes
Land Use Subtype Description
Land Use Code and
Source
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
This is a warehouse that does not have refrigeration and no rail spur. 150, ITE 10th
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-Rail
This is a warehouse that does not have refrigeration but has a rail spur. 150, ITE 10th
Unit Amount and Size Metric
By tabbing over to the Unit Amount and Size Metric columns, respectively, the user can enter the number of units (e.g., houses, apartments, etc.) and the corresponding size metric (e.g., per 1000 sq. ft., employees, students, etc.). These data combinations will be used to populate the lot acreage, square feet and population columns on this screen. For example, a school land use allows the user to define its size by the number of students, building square footage, or number of employees. It is important to note that the square footage, which is used for calculating such impacts as architectural coatings and energy use, relates to the total building square footage and not the building footprint or lot acreage which is used for housing density as well as grading and site preparation calculations. A pop-up message was added to let users know that Unit Amount should be consistent with Lot Acreage or Square Feet on the Land Use page, and the Unit Amount should not be left as zero or blank.

Lot Acreage
If actual lot acreage data is available, the user should override the default value. However, for a mixed use, multi-story building, the user should not override the square footage default value for each individual land use or the acreage default value assigned to the residential portion or the split between the non-residential land uses if there is no residential portion. The figure below provides an example of a mixed-use project and instructions for applying the appropriate square footage and acreage.

Acreage is used to estimate housing density and assign construction default data (e.g., grading, site preparation, etc.). Table 2 contains housing density default data per land use in terms of dwelling units (DU) per acre. By using these data, CalEEMod can estimate the number of acres per dwelling unit (DU) for residential land use. For example, if the user enters 10 apartments in a low-rise building, then the lot acreage will be 0.625 acre (10 DU divided by 16 acres/DU).

According to the California Energy Commission’s Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS), the metric for low rise apartments is 1,000 square feet per DU (see Table 2.1). Similarly, using the same example, the building footprint will be 0.23 acre (10 DU x 1000 sq. ft./DU x 1 acre/43,560 sq. ft.). Thus, the total lot acreage includes the residential footprint plus driveway and landscaping/open space.

After the user has completed entering all of land uses for the project, CalEEMod will add the lot acreage values for each land use and the total will be reflected in the lot acreage text box located at the bottom of the screen. The value in the total lot acreage box cannot be modified by the user. 451
USER’S GUIDE
30 May 2021
Table 2: Default Housing Density1
Land Use Subtype
Density (Dwelling
Units/Acre)
Single Family Housing 3
Apartments low rise 16
Apartments mid rise 38
Apartments high rise 62
Condo/townhouse 16
Condo/townhouse high rise 64
Mobile Home Park 8
Retirement Community 5
Congregate care (Assisted Living) 16
1 Based on the density assumed in ITE Trip Generation 8th Edition 452
USER’S GUIDE
31 May 2021
Square Footage
If actual square footage of the total building or building footprint is known, the user should override the default value.

Population
After the completing the tabs for unit amount, size metric, lot acreage, and square footage, the population field will contain a default which represents an estimate of the population for each land use type and subtype selected by the user. If the actual population data is known, the user should override the default value.

After the user has completed entering all of land uses for the project, CalEEMod will add the population values for each land use and the total will be reflected in the population text box located at the bottom of the screen. The value in the total population box cannot be modified by the user.

City Park/Golf Course Building Area Square Feet (text box) If the user selects a City Park and/or Golf Course land use, a text box will appear at the bottom of the screen that will prompt the user to enter the building square footage of all the buildings that will be located on the City Park and/or Golf Course property (e.g., restrooms/changing rooms, pro-shop, etc.). The user must input site-specific building square footage data because there are no default values for building footprints on these types of land uses. If the building square footage is left blank (e.g., zero square feet), a warning message will appear to remind the user to enter a value in this field.

Recreational Swimming Pool Building Area Square Feet (text box) If the user selects a Recreational Swimming Pool land use, a text box will appear at the bottom of the screen that will prompt the user to enter the building square footage of all the buildings that will be located on the property (e.g., restrooms/changing rooms, pro-shop, etc.). The user must input site-specific building square footage data because there is no default value for the building footprint on this type of land use. If the building square footage is left blank (e.g., zero square feet), a warning message appear to remind the user to enter a value in this field.

4.3 Construction
After completing the Land Use screen and clicking on the Next button, the Construction screen will appear along with seven tabs/sub-screens that cover the following construction topic areas:

Construction Phase; Off-Road Equipment; Dust from Material Movement; Demolition; Trips and VMT, On-Road Fugitive Dust, and Architectural Coatings. To move from one tab/sub-screen to another, the user can use the Next and Previous buttons, or click on any of grey tabs. The construction tabs/sub-screens contain default information that was obtained from a survey of construction sites conducted by South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD). The construction survey data is grouped by construction phase and lot acreage and can be found in Appendix E1. The default construction equipment list and phase length data were determined to be the most appropriate for the size and types surveyed. In addition, some data in the survey was extrapolated to create default values for project sizes that were not in the survey.

However, if the user has more detailed site-specific equipment and phase information, the user should override the default values.
453
USER’S GUIDE
32 May 2021

4.3.1 Construction Phase
The Construction Phase tab is where the user can enter the type of each construction phase and the date range for each phase. Default phases are based on the total lot acreage of the project.

Depending on the project being modeled, not all phases may be necessary, so the user may need to delete phases that are not applicable to the project. For example, not all projects require demolition. In addition, the user may need to add multiple phases of similar types for large projects with staged build out scenarios. It is important to note that if a project has demolition, grading, and site preparation phases, the user will need to provide additional project-specific data on the Demolition and Dust from Material Movement sub-screens.

Phase Name and Phase Type
The Phase Name and Phase Type fields will be automatically populated with the following default construction phases: Site Preparation; Demolition; Grading; Building Construction; Paving; and, Architectural Coating. The inclusion of any of these phases will define the types of calculations and default assumptions for on-road vehicle trips and fugitive emissions that occur in subsequent construction sub-screens. The definitions of the default phase types are as follows:
• Demolition involves removing buildings or structures. • Site Preparation involves clearing vegetation (grubbing and tree/stump removal) and removing stones and other unwanted material or debris prior to grading. • Grading involves the cut and fill of land to ensure that the proper base and slope is created for the foundation.
• Building Construction involves the construction of the foundation, structures and buildings. • Architectural Coating involves the application of coatings to both the interior and exterior of buildings or structures, the painting of parking lot or parking garage striping, associated signage and curbs, and the painting of the walls or other components such as stair railings inside parking structures.
• Paving involves the laying of concrete or asphalt such as in parking lots, roads, driveways, or sidewalks.
454
USER’S GUIDE
33 May 2021
Start Date and End Date
The user can enter with the aid of a calendar, the Start Date and End Date for each construction phase. The default Start Date is the Start of Construction date defined on the Project Characteristics screen. The cells will be automatically populated with a default construction schedule starting with the Demolition phase, with subsequent phases starting the following day after the previous phase’s end date. The user may change the defaults to alter the total days estimated for each phase. Because CARB’s emission factors vary from year to year, when the user inserts the start and end dates for each construction phase, the model will select the correct emission factors for the year when each piece of off-road equipment will be utilized.

Days per Week
The user can select from a drop-down box the number of days per week (either 5, 6, or 7 days) that construction will occur. Five days per week assumes that construction will occur from Monday through Friday, and six days per week assumes that construction will occur Monday through Saturday.

Total Days
The Total Days field is intended to indicate the number of days that it will take to complete a particular construction phase and this field is initially populated with default values. If the End Date or the Days per Week fields are changed, clicking the Total Days field will trigger a recalculation of the Total Days. If the Total Days field for any phase is changed, then once leaving this field, the program will automatically adjust the End Date based on the Start Date for that phase.

4.3.2 Off-Road Equipment
The Off-Road Equipment tab is for the user to select the type and quantity of off-road equipment needed for each construction phase and to define the daily usage schedule. Since equipment lists can be lengthy and vary widely for each construction phase, the user will need to first select the phase from Phase Name drop down list or by clicking on the Previous or Next buttons located next to the phase name, and then select the off-road equipment that will be used for each construction phase. The Off-Road Equipment screen calculates emissions based on the expected off-road equipment engine use for each piece of equipment listed over the duration of the phase length. It is important to note that fugitive emissions from off-road equipment are calculated elsewhere on other construction screens.

After the user enters the Equipment Type, Number of Units, and Hours per Day for each piece of equipment that will be used in any phase, the Horsepower and Load Factor fields will be automatically populated with the default average values from CARB’s OFFROAD2011. If equipment-specific information is available, the user can override these default values. In some cases, CARB’s OFFROAD2011 emission factors are not available for all years. Thus, if the user selects a construction year that does not have corresponding emission factors, CalEEMod has been programmed to substitute the emissions factors from nearest, lower end (e.g., oldest) year.

For example, if construction will occur in year 2037 (a year which does not have emission factors), CalEEMod will substitute the emission factors from year 2035 instead. Since newer equipment tends to have less emissions than older equipment, by selecting emission factors from year 2035 (an older year), the calculations may result in a conservative, slight overestimate of emissions. 455
USER’S GUIDE
34 May 2021
If the project requires the use of off-road equipment that is not specifically listed in the drop-down list, the user can select from three generalized equipment categories to add customized equipment to the analysis: 1) Other Construction Equipment; 2) Other General Industrial Equipment; and, 3) Other Material Handling Equipment. In addition, the user may choose to select a surrogate equipment type which has a similar horsepower rating and load factor. To include water trucks and cement trucks in the analysis, the user needs to first determine if these trucks are off-road or on-road vehicles. If they are only driven off-road, then the user can select the OffHighway Trucks category in the Off-Road Equipment screen. If the trucks are driven on-road, the user can account for the on-road emissions by entering this information as Additional Vendor Trips on the Trips and VMT screen (see Subchapter 4.3.5).

4.3.3 Dust from Material Movement
The Dust from Material Movement sub-screen is intended for calculating fugitive dust emissions associated with the Site Preparation and Grading phases (defaults) during construction. This subscreen calculates the following three types of fugitive dust: 1) fugitive dust from dozers moving dirt; 2) fugitive dust from graders or scrapers leveling the land; and; 3) fugitive dust from loading or unloading dirt into haul trucks. These methods have been adapted from USEPA’s AP-42 method for Western Coal Mining. Once the user enters the amount of material imported and exported to the site, CalEEMod will estimate the number of hauling trips associated with from material transport activities. The user may define the units in terms of Ton of Debris or Cubic Yards. The user may also select whether the import/export of material is phased (e.g., the same truck that arrives with material departs with another load of material to export in one round trip or two one-way trips. The calculations for non-phased material import/export trips assume that one truck arrives empty and departs full and a different truck arrives full for a total of two round trips (or four one-way trips). Thus, phasing of material import and export trips reduces the number of haul trips.

The Total Acres Graded field represents the cumulative distance traversed on the property by the grading equipment, assuming a blade width of 12 feet. To properly grade a piece of land, multiple passes with grading equipment may be required. So even though the lot size is a fixed number of acres, the Total Acres Graded could be an order of magnitude higher than the footprint of the lot and is calculated based on the equipment list (including number of equipment), the number of days need to complete the grading and/or site preparation phase, and the maximum number of acres a given piece of equipment can traverse in an 8-hour workday. For more information regarding how Dust from Material Movement is calculated, including grading rates, see Appendix A, Subchapter 4.3.

4.3.4 Demolition
The Demolition sub-screen is intended for the user to enter the amount of material that is demolished, if a demolition phase is selected by the user as part of the construction project. The user can select the Size Metric to define the amount of demolished material that is expected to be generated during the demolition phase in terms of Ton of Debris or Building Square Footage.

With this data, fugitive dust emissions generated during demolition are calculated. The calculation of fugitive dust emissions during demolition is derived from the methodology described in the report prepared for the USEPA by Midwest Research Institute, Gap Filling PM10 Emission Factors for Selected Open Area Dust Sources.
456
USER’S GUIDE
35 May 2021

4.3.5 Trip and VMT
The Trip and VMT sub-screen is used to provide the number and length (in terms of vehicle miles traveled or VMT) of on-road vehicle trips for workers, vendors, and hauling for each construction phase. Depending on the land use type and subtype combined with the various construction phases, CalEEMod will populate the fields for Number of Trips, Trip Length, and Vehicle Class for worker, vendor and haul trips, respectively, with default values. The vehicle class descriptor HHDT, MHDT means that there is a 50/50 percent mix of heavy-heavy duty trucks and mediumheavy duty trucks. Similarly, the vehicle class descriptor LDA, LDT1, LDT2 means that there is a 50/25/25 percent mix of light duty autos, light duty truck class 1 and light duty truck class 2, respectively. The user may override the defaults and enter different weightings of vehicle fleet mixes. It is important to note that CalEEMod’s database has EMFAC2017 emission factors for the following years: 2000, 2005, 2010-2035, 2040, 2045, and 2050 so if the user selects a construction year that does not have corresponding EMFAC2017 emission factors for on-road vehicles, CalEEMod has been programmed to substitute the emissions factors from nearest, lower end (e.g., oldest) year. For example, if construction will occur in year 2037 (a year which does not have emission factors), CalEEMod will substitute the emission factors from year 2035 instead. Since newer equipment tends to have less emissions than older equipment, by selecting emission factors from year 2035 (an older year), the calculations may result in a conservative, slight overestimate of emissions. Note: CalEEMod only adopts EMFAC’s Statewide, Air Basin, Air Districts and County regions, it does not include EMFAC’s MPO and sub-area regions.

CalEEMod quantifies the number of construction workers by multiplying 1.25 times the number of pieces of equipment for all phases (except Building Construction and Architectural Coating). For the Building Construction, the number of workers is derived from a study conducted by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) which determined the number of workers needed for various types of land uses and corresponding project size. This study and its analysis are included in Appendix E2. For the Architectural Coating phase, the number of workers is approximately 20% of the number of workers needed during the Building Construction phase.

The number of vendor trips during the Building Construction phase is also derived from a study conducted by the SMAQMD. The SMAQMD trip survey during construction counted cement and water trucks as vendor trips (instead of counting them as off-road vehicle trips) and these trip rates were incorporated into the calculations for the Building Construction phase. If the user deletes the Building Construction phase from the analysis, but the project will require water and/or cement trucks, then the user will need to account for these either as vendor trips under another construction phase or under the Off-Road equipment screen.

The default values for hauling trips assume that a truck can haul 20 tons (or 16 cubic yards) of material per load. If one load of material is delivered, CalEEMod assumes that one haul truck importing material will also have a return trip with an empty truck (e.g., 2 one-way trips). Similarly, a haul truck needed to export material is assumed to have an arrival trip in an empty truck and a loaded departure truck (e.g., 2 one-way trips). Thus, each trip to import and export material is considered as two separate round trips (or 4 one-way trips). However, if the Phase box is checked, the same haul truck that imported the material will be assumed to be the same haul truck that export material resulting in one round trip (or 2 one-way trips). 457
USER’S GUIDE
36 May 2021

4.3.6 On-Road Fugitive Dust
The On-Road Fugitive Dust sub-screen defines the variables that will be used to determine the fugitive dust emissions from on-road vehicles driving over paved and unpaved roads during construction. CalEEMod automatically populates the data fields based on the construction phase.

The calculations use emission factors from USEPA’s AP-42 for paved roads (January 2011 edition) and unpaved roads (November 2006 edition). Each data field is the same as those defined in the aforementioned AP-42 sections.

4.3.7 Architectural Coatings
The Architectural Coatings sub-screen is intended to calculate ROG emissions associated with painting the interior/exterior of residential and non-residential buildings as well as calculate emissions from parking lot painting or striping. The user may override any of the default interior and exterior surface areas estimated for residential and non-residential buildings. In addition, each of these surface types has a different emission factor indicating the ROG content of the paint in grams per liter (g/L). It is important to note that the parking area square footage is not included in the non-residential interior/exterior square footage when calculating emissions attributable to parking lot striping. See Appendix A, Subchapter 4.7 for the methodology of estimating surface areas to be coated from building square footage.

4.4 Operational Mobile
The operational mobile screen is made up of four sub-screens: Vehicle Trips, Vehicle Emissions, Fleet Mix and Road Dust. These screens are used in defining the information necessary to calculate the emissions associated with operational on-road vehicles.

4.4.1 Vehicle Trips
This sub-screen includes the trip rates, trip lengths, trip purpose, and trip type percentages for each land use subtype in the project. The user can edit any of this information by entering a new value in the appropriate cell. Trip rates are in terms of the size metric (thousand square footage or dwelling unit) defined on the land use screen and are listed for weekday, Saturday and Sunday if available. Trip lengths are for primary trips. Trip purposes are primary, diverted, and pass-by trips. Diverted trips are assumed to take a slightly different path than a primary trip and are assumed to be 25% of the primary trip lengths. Pass-by trips are assumed to be 0.1 miles in length and are a result of no diversion from the primary route. Residential trip types are defined as home-work (H-W), home-shop (H-S), and home-other (H-O). Non-residential trip types are defined as commercial –customer (C-C), commercial-work (C-W), and commercial-nonwork (CNW) such as delivery trips. Appendix A includes the equations and methodology used to calculate motor vehicle emissions from the operation of a project.

The trip rates are based on ITE 8
th, 9th, and 10th edition average trip rates for the respective land use categories.
458
USER’S GUIDE
37 May 2021

4.4.2 Vehicle Emissions
This sub-screen contains the detailed vehicle emission factors based on EMFAC2017. Appendix A includes the description of how these emission factors were derived from EMFAC2017. It is anticipated that most users will not edit data in this sub-screen. There are separate tabs for annual, summer, and winter emissions values. If the user wants to alter the breakdown of fuel types (catalytic, non-catalytic, and other) within a vehicle class, they will have to provide their own data. This will likely be an infrequent change due to CEQA enforceability requirements.

EMFAC2017 includes vehicle N2O emissions. Beginning with CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0, N2O emissions from vehicles are included.

This screen along with the previous screen (Vehicle Trips) and next screen (Fleet Mix) will provide the data for the model to calculate the emissions associated with on-road motor vehicle use. The calculation does not include the fugitive dust emissions from travel over roads as these are associated with the next screen (Road Dust).
459
USER’S GUIDE
38 May 2021

4.4.3 Fleet Mix
Beginning with CalEEMod Version 2016.3.1, the fleet mix was separated from the Vehicle Emissions screen and a new Fleet Mix screen was created so that users can change default fleet mix associated with different land use subtypes.
460
USER’S GUIDE
39 May 2021

4.4.4 Road Dust
This sub-screen is used to change any of the default values that are used in the USEPA’s AP-42 methods for calculating fugitive emissions from paved and unpaved roads. The defaults for the road dust (e.g., material silt content, material moisture content, and mean vehicle speed) are statewide averages, but the user can override the defaults if data specific to the project is known.

Local jurisdictions can also provide guidance to users as to what default properly reflects known regional road dust parameters.

For the San Luis Obispo region, the user is recommended to provide the following unpaved road dust parameters overriding the statewide defaults if users choose to use USEPA’s AP-42 methods:

9.3 for Material Silt Content (%) (instead of 4.3 statewide default)

0.1 for Material Moisture Content (%) (instead of 0.5 statewide default)

32.4 for Mean Vehicle Speed (mph) (instead of 40 statewide default) Beginning with CalEEMod Version 2016.3.1, projects located in San Luis Obispo County APCD and Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD were provided an additional option for the user to select 461
USER’S GUIDE
40 May 2021
CARB’s 2.0 lbs. PM10/VMT12 as the default unmitigated fugitive dust emission factor for unpaved roads during the operational phase. If this default is selected, an emission factor of 0.2 lbs.

PM2.5/VMT is also applied based on a 10% PM2.5/ PM10 ratio13, 14. By checking the box, the program will use CARB’s emission factor to override the calculated emission factor based on USEPA AP-42. Note: For project locations other than San Luis Obispo County APCD and Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD, CARB’s 2.0 lbs. PM10/VMT is not an option that the user can select.

4.5 Area
The area source screen consists of four sub-screens: Hearths, Consumer Products, Area Architectural Coatings, and Landscaping Equipment. Natural gas emission variables from all uses except hearths are included in the energy use screen (described in Section 4.6).

4.5.1 Hearths and Woodstoves
This sub-screen allows the user to enter the number of woodstoves and hearths of various types as well as the usage of these devices. Woodstoves are separate from fireplaces since a home may have both and these devices may have different use patterns. The number of devices that is

12 Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/areasrc/fullpdf/full7-10.pdf 13 Available at: http://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch13/related/mri_final_fine_fraction_dust_report.pdf 14 Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/emssumcat_query.php?F_YR=2015&F_DIV=- 4&F_SEASON=A&SP=2009&F_AREA=CA#0
462
USER’S GUIDE
41 May 2021
entered for each device type represents the total number of devices installed in the dwelling units for a particular land use. Appendix A contains the emissions calculation methodology and details of variables that the user cannot override. Some of these emissions may be classified as biogenic and are therefore reported as CO2-Biogenic. For most locations a default percent of hearths and stoves was provided by air districts and is multiplied through. The number of devices was chosen to include in CalEEMod instead of a percentage to allow for incorporation of various air district rules regarding hearths and woodstoves in new residences without having specialized data entry screens. Commercial land uses by default do not have hearths or woodstoves in CalEEMod.

These are included for those cases where they may occur such as in restaurants or hotels.

The San Joaquin Valley jurisdiction has a regulatory limit on the number of hearths depending upon the type and number of residential developments. The regulatory limit is generated by CalEEMod but all the input parameters (e.g., unit density, etc.) are necessary to determine the value. Thus, the regulatory limit is disclosed during the reporting stage under the Default Value box in the report. The model, however, calculates emission impacts from the number of hearths inputted on the Area source screen (listed under the New Value column in the report). Therefore, if the user wants to calculate emissions from regulatory limit, the report needs to be run to determine the regulatory limit and the user needs to go back to the Area Source screen to input that value and re-run the report. If the user chooses to calculate emissions from a different number of hearths (e.g., the number of hearths less than the regulatory limit), then that number needs to be inputted on the Area Source screen to properly calculate emissions. Again, the report will 463
USER’S GUIDE
42 May 2021
provide the regulatory limit under the Default Value column and the user input value under New Value column.

4.5.2 Consumer Products
Consumer products are various solvents used in non-industrial applications which emit ROGs during their product use. These typically include cleaning supplies, kitchen aerosols, cosmetics and toiletries. South Coast AQMD has developed an emission factor based on the total of all building square footage for both residential and non-residential buildings. Details of how this emission factor was developed can be found in Appendix E. The user can change this emission factor if more relevant data is available. Beginning with CalEEMod Version 2016.3.1, ROG emissions from pesticides/fertilizers for City Parks and Golf Courses and ROG emissions from parking surface degreasers are separate from the general consumer products category. Also beginning with CalEEMod Version 2016.3.1, the model also assumes that there would be no ROG emissions from the actual pool surface area for Recreational Swimming Pools because the chemicals used for maintaining pools are not considered to be ROGs. Details of how the ROG emission factors for pesticides/fertilizers and parking surface degreasers were determined can be found in Appendix E.

4.5.3 Area Architectural Coatings
This sub-screen has text boxes for the reapplication rate and coating ROG content for each building surface type and parking surface. The reapplication rate is the percentage of the total surface area that is repainted each year. A default of 10% is used, meaning that 10% of the surface area is repainted each year (i.e., all surface areas are repainted once every 10 years).

Daily emissions divide the annual rate by 365 days per year. This is based on assumptions used by South Coast AQMD in their district rules regarding architectural coatings. Some districts provided details on their coating regulations that phase-in over time, which have been incorporated to the extent feasible, given the general classifications of paint (interior or exterior for residential and non-residential). Coating ROG content from state regulations are used for air districts that did not provide specific architectural coating information. Consult your local air district for suggested values that may be lower than the state regulations.

The ROG contents under the Operational Area Architectural Coatings screen (either CalEEMod defaults or site-specific values defined by users) become the default ROG contents for the Area Mitigation screen. The user may check the box under the Area Mitigation screen and specify a lower ROG content limit.

4.5.4 Landscape Equipment
This sub-screen has two text boxes to show the number of snow days or summer days. In addition, the defaults consider a realistic number of days which the landscaping equipment would be operated. For example, landscaping at commercial facilities typically do not take place during a weekend or during the summer at educational facilities that are not open. The number of days is applied to the appropriate landscape equipment types available in OFFROAD2011 using the average horsepower and load factors of the population mode. The derivation of emission factors used for each equipment type from OFFROAD2011 is described in Appendix A. 464
USER’S GUIDE
43 May 2021

4.6 Energy Use
The energy use screen is used to gather the information necessary to estimate the emissions associated with building electricity and natural gas usage (non-hearth). The electricity energy use is in units of kilowatt hours (kWh) per size metric for each land use subtype. Natural gas use is in units of a thousand British Thermal Units (kBTU) per size metric for each land use subtype.

Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, known as the California Building Standards Code or Title 24, contains energy conservation standards applicable to all residential and nonresidential buildings throughout California. With CalEEMod, building electricity and natural gas use is divided into two categories: 1) end uses subject to Title 24 standards; and, 2) end uses not subject to Title 24 standards. The distinction is used when the mitigation measure for exceeding Title 24 standards (BE-1) is applied. Lighting is also a separate category in CalEEMod for which a separate mitigation measures (LUT-1) may be applied for using energy efficient lighting.

For electricity, Title 24 uses include the major building envelope systems covered by Part 6 (California Energy Code) of Title 24 such as space heating, space cooling, water heating, and ventilation. Non-Title 24 uses include all other end uses, such as appliances, electronics, and other miscellaneous plug-in uses. Because some lighting is not considered as part of the building envelope energy budget, and since a separate mitigation measure is applicable to this end use, CalEEMod makes lighting a separate category.

For natural gas, uses are likewise categorized as Title 24 or Non-Title 24, with Title 24 uses including building heating and hot water end uses. Non-Title 24 natural gas uses include cooking and appliances (including pool/spa heaters).

The baseline values are based on the CEC sponsored California Commercial End Use Survey (CEUS) and Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) studies15. For climate zones not included in these surveys, data from the closest climate zone was used as a surrogate. Since these studies are based on older buildings, adjustments have been made to account for changes due to Title 24 building codes as described in Appendix E. The user should select the use historical box if they only want an adjustment to the 2005 standards which were in effect when CARB developed its Scoping Plan 2020 No Action Taken predictions. After selecting the historical button, the user must also click the default button to load the historical default values.

15 CEC. October 2010. Residential Appliance Saturation Survey. Available at:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/rass
CEC. March 2006. Commercial End-Use Survey. Available at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/surveys/california-commercial-end-use-survey/2006-california-commercial-end-use-survey 465
USER’S GUIDE
44 May 2021

4.7 Water and Wastewater Use
This screen estimates the land uses contribution of GHG emissions associated with supplying and treating water and wastewater. This screen is used to enter the amount of water in gallons used indoors and outdoors for each land use subtype.

16. The indoor water is also used to estimate
the amount of wastewater. The electricity intensity factor for various phases of providing water is provided. Depending on the specific water supply used or treatment method used these numbers can vary over a wide range. Supplying water is bringing the water from its primary source such as the ground, river, or snowpack to the treatment plant. Distributing the water is bringing the water from the treatment plant to the end users. The electricity intensity factors are multiplied by the utility GHG emissions intensity factors for the GHGs and are classified as indirect emissions.

The default electricity intensity is from the CEC’s 2006 Refining Estimates of Water-Related

16 Gleick, P.H.; Haasz, D.; Henges-Jeck, C.; Srinivasan, V.; Cushing, K.K.; Mann, A. 2003. Waste Not, Want Not:

The Potential for Urban Water Conservation in California. Published by the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security. Full report available at:
http://www.pacinst.org/reports/urban_usage/waste_not_want_not_full_report.pdf.

Appendices available at: http://pacinst.org/publication/waste-not-want-not/ Dziegielewski; B.; Kiefer, J.C.; Optiz, E.M.; Porter, G.A.; Lantz, G.L.; DeOreo, W.B.; Mayer, P.W.; Nelson, J.O. 2000. Commercial and Institutional End Uses of Water. Published by the American Water Works Association Research Foundation.
466
USER’S GUIDE
45 May 2021
Energy Use in California using the average values for Northern and Southern California17. The location will automatically select the appropriate values if using these defaults. Since the electricity can vary greatly based on locations, the user should override these values if they have more specific information regarding their specific water supply and treatment.

Wastewater may also have direct emissions of GHGs. These depend on the type of wastewater treatment system (e.g., septic, aerobic or lagoons) used and therefore the wastewater treatment type percentages are variables. In addition, the model calculates impacts if the solids are digested either through an anaerobic digester or with co-generation from combustion of digester gas. Each type has associated GHG emission factors. Some of these may be classified as biogenic. Not all the biogenic emissions are accounted for since there are not adequate emissions factors at this time. Refer to Appendix A on how to properly change the defaults, if necessary, and the methodology used to calculate impacts from wastewater treatment.

17 CEC-500-2006-118. Available at
https://planning.lacity.org/eir/8150Sunset/References/4.E.%20Greenhouse%20Gas%20Emissions/GHG.21_CEC %20Water-Related%20Energy%20Use.PDF
467
USER’S GUIDE
46 May 2021

4.8 Solid Waste
The solid waste screen determines the GHG emissions associated with disposal of solid waste into landfills. To estimate the eventual contribution of GHG emissions from solid waste disposed by a land use annually, the total amount of carbon dioxide and methane that would be evolved over the span of many years is calculated. This is based on the IPCC’s methods for quantifying GHG emissions from solid waste using the degradable organic content of waste18. Waste disposal rates by land use and overall composition of municipal solid waste in California is primarily based on CalRecycle data. The amount of methane emitted depends on characteristics of the landfill, and therefore the default percentage is based on the types of landfills assumed by CARB in their GHG emissions inventories. Portions of these emissions are biogenic. The defaults for the gas capture (e.g., no capture, flaring, energy recovery) are statewide averages except for Santa Barbara APCD which has a 100% landfill capture gas flare. The user can override the defaults if the gas capture at the landfill to be used by the project is known. Local jurisdictions can also provide guidance to users as to what default properly reflects known regional solid waste gas capture.

18 IPCC. 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Volume 5 Waste.

Available at http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html. 468
USER’S GUIDE
47 May 2021

4.9 Off-Road Equipment
The Operational - Off-Road Equipment sub-screen allows the user to identify any off-road equipment used during operational activities (e.g., forklifts, cranes, loaders, generator sets, pumps, pressure washers, etc.) at the project site. Because such equipment cannot be assumed to be needed for a particular land use project, a user must provide the data for CalEEMod to calculate the resulting emissions from off-road equipment operation. A dropdown list of off-road equipment is provided for the user to identify each piece of equipment. The model requires the following specific information per equipment type. The user would need to provide the number of pieces for each equipment type. The model assumes an operation activity of 8 hours per day and 260 days per year, as well as the horsepower and load factor of the equipment type, but the user can override the default assumptions with project specific information. Finally, the model assumes diesel fuel, but a dropdown menu is provided to allow the user to choose bio-diesel, compressed natural gas (CNG) or electrical if known, to power the equipment. 469
USER’S GUIDE
48 May 2021

4.10Stationary Sources
The Stationary Sources screen consists of five sub-screens: Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps and their default emission factors, Process Boilers and their default emission factors, and User Defined Sources. Consult with the local air district to determine if permitted stationary sources should be included in the project analysis using CalEEMod.

4.10.1 Emergency Generator and Fire Pumps and Default Emission Factors Two sub-screens allow the user to enter emergency power generators and diesel fueled fire pumps and to estimate emissions. This type of equipment operates only for maintenance and testing, or during emergency situations, such as power failures. To calculate emissions, the user must enter the engine rating (in horsepower), the anticipated maximum daily usage, and the anticipated maximum annual usage into the Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps sub-screen.

The user may change the default load factor. The default emission factors for the equipment are shown on the separate Generators/Fire Pumps EF (emission factor) sub-screen. The user can replace the default emission factors but needs to provide custom emission factors in the predefined units. See Appendix A for the sources of default emission factors and emission calculation methodology.
470
USER’S GUIDE
49 May 2021

4.10.2 Process Boilers and Default Emission Factors
Two sub-screens allow the user to enter process boilers and to estimate emissions. Do not use this option for boilers providing space heating or building hot water, as these uses are included building energy use (See Subchapter 4.6). To calculate process boiler emissions, the user must enter the boiler rating (in million BTU/hr) and maximum anticipated daily and annual heat input in the Process Boilers sub-screen. The default emission factors for boilers are shown on the separate Boiler EF (emission factor) sub-screen. The user can replace the default emission factors, but needs to provide custom emission factors in the predefined units. See Appendix A for the sources of default emission factors and emission calculation methodology. 471
USER’S GUIDE
50 May 2021
472
USER’S GUIDE
51 May 2021

4.10.3 User Defined
An option for the user to define stationary sources other than emergency generators, fire pumps and process boiler has been included in the User Defined sub-screen. Emissions for this source would include any other miscellaneous sources that typically require permits to operate issued by an air district. Emissions may be manually entered here, either by transferring values from the permits to operate, or by calculating emissions outside of CalEEMod. Any emissions entered here will be transferred to the appropriate reports.
473
USER’S GUIDE
52 May 2021

4.11 Vegetation
The vegetation screen is used to estimate the one-time change in carbon sequestration capacity due to a project. There are two sub-screens, Land Use Change and Sequestration. The methods used are based on IPCC19.

4.11.1 Land Use Change
The Land Use Change sub-screen estimates GHG emissions due to a change in vegetation resulting from a change in land use type. The user enters the vegetation land use type, the initial and final acreage of the vegetation land use type, and the annual carbon dioxide equivalent accumulation per acre if the user chooses to override the default value. Settlement land use acreage is not considered since it is a net zero at steady state unless trees are added.

19 IPCC. 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Volume 4. Available at http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html 474
USER’S GUIDE
53 May 2021

4.11.2 Sequestration
This sub-screen of Vegetation is used to estimate the GHG emissions associated with the sequestration of net new trees added to the project site. Consistent with IPCC recommendations a 20-year active growth period is assumed. The user enters the tree type or miscellaneous if it is not known, and the total number of trees. The user can override the default carbon sequestration rate.

4.12Mitigation
The mitigation screen consists of six sub-screens that the user can indicate and supply the necessary information to estimate the emissions after mitigation measures have been implemented. The mitigation measures included in CalEEMod are largely based on the CAPCOA Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (http://www.capcoa.org/wpcontent/uploads/downloads/2010/09/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf) document.

The CAPCOA measure numbers are provided next to the mitigation measures in CalEEMod to assist the user in understanding each measure by referencing back to the CAPCOA document.

This User’s Guide focuses on key aspects of the Mitigation sub-screens which are described in more detail in the following sections.
475
USER’S GUIDE
54 May 2021

4.12.1 Construction Mitigation
This sub-screen consists of a data-grid of off-road construction equipment to apply various mitigation measures and check boxes with supplemental information for fugitive dust emissions mitigation.

To apply mitigation to construction equipment, the user selects the equipment type, notes the number of equipment mitigated (of the total number of off-road equipment listed), and type of mitigation that applies. If substantial evidence supporting reductions was available at the time of development, options include fuel type (diesel, CNG, electric, hybrid, biodiesel), engine tier (typically select Tier 4), diesel particulate filter tiers (Tier 3 being the most effective), and use of oxidative catalysts. The program estimates how much if any increase or decrease in emissions to apply for each pollutant. Some mitigation measures have trade-offs in pollutant reductions and therefore may result in increases of some pollutants. The mitigation option to use alternative fuel for construction equipment is consistent with mitigation measure C-1 in the CAPCOA Quantifying GHG Mitigation document.

To apply mitigation to construction fugitive dust, the user must select the check box in front of the mitigation measure name, and enter the appropriate information in the drop-down or text boxes.

Some fugitive dust mitigation required by some air districts will not appear since the fugitive dust 476
USER’S GUIDE
55 May 2021
sources being mitigated are not quantified by CalEEMod (e.g., fugitive dust generated by wind over land and storage piles). For any fugitive dust source that is not quantified, it is not appropriate to apply the reduction.

For Unpaved Road Mitigation for construction fugitive dust, the maximum vehicle speed and the minimum moisture content for unpaved roads are entered. Defaults for these values are those entered on the On-Road Fugitive Dust screen. Mitigated emissions are calculated using the VMT from on-road vehicles traveling along unpaved roads, previously calculated from the percentages entered on the On-road Fugitive Dust Screen (e.g., % Pave Worker, % Pave Vendor or % Pave Hauling).

Users may check the boxes and provide a lower vehicle speed and a higher moisture content to conduct the mitigation calculation. If during a particular construction phase the user defined mitigated vehicle speed is higher than the unmitigated vehicle speed and/or the user defined mitigated moisture content is lower than the unmitigated moisture content, a warming message will be displayed. In this case, the unmitigated values will be used, resulting in no mitigation being calculated.

4.12.2 Traffic Mitigation
There are two traffic mitigation sub-screens that the user can select from, Land Use & Site Enhancement and Commute. First, the user must select the Project Setting as defined in the CAPCOA document (pp. 59-60).
• Low Density Suburban: An area characterized by dispersed, low-density, single-use, automobile dependent land use patterns, usually outside of the central city (a suburb). • Suburban Center: An area that serves the population of the suburb with office, retail and housing which is denser than the surrounding suburb.
• Urban: An area which is located within the central city with higher density of land uses than you would find in the suburbs. It may be characterized by multi-family housing and located near office and retail.
• Urban Center (referred to as Compact Infill in the CAPCOA document): An area which is located within or contiguous with the central city. Examples may include redevelopment areas, abandoned sites, or underutilized older buildings/sites.

If the CAPCOA measure did not distinguish between Suburban Center and Low-Density Suburban, values for Low Density Suburban were used. Similarly, if Urban Center and Urban values were not distinguished, Urban values were used.

The user checks the box next to each mitigation measure and fills in the appropriate information as required. The maximum reduction caps defined in the CAPCOA Quantifying GHG Mitigation document are integrated into these calculations. The CAPCOA traffic mitigation measure numbers included in CalEEMod are the following: LUT-1, LUT-3, LUT-9, LUT-4, LUT-5, LUT-6, SDT-1, SDT-2, SDT-3, PDT-1, PDT-2, PDT-3, TST-1, TST-3, TST-4, TRT-1, TRT-2, TRT-4, TRT15, TRT-14, TRT-6, TRT-7, TRT-11,TRT-3, and TRT-13. The NEV network mitigation measure (SDT-3) assumes the low end of the CAPCOA recommendations. 477
USER’S GUIDE
56 May 2021
478
USER’S GUIDE
57 May 2021

4.12.3 Area Mitigation
The user can select from a few area source mitigation measures on the Area sub-screen by checking the appropriate box and supplying any additional information in the text boxes. These measures include all natural gas hearths, no hearths, electric landscaping equipment use, reduced ROG coatings, and reduced general category consumer product ROG content. The area landscaping mitigation to prohibit gas powered landscape equipment is consistent with mitigation A-1 in the CAPCOA Quantifying GHG Mitigation document.
479
USER’S GUIDE
58 May 2021

4.12.4 Energy Mitigation
The user selects energy mitigation measures on the Energy sub-screen by using the check boxes or the data-grid. These correspond to CAPCOA Mitigation Measures LE-1, BE-1, AE-1, AE-2, AE3 and BE-4 as listed in the CAPCOA Quantifying GHG Mitigation document. The lighting is a percentage reduction in lighting as supplied by the user. The data-grid is used to enter the land use subtypes that will use energy efficient appliances. The percent improvement is the typical percent improvement above standard appliances according to the 2008 Energy Star Annual Report20. Alternative Energy has two methods to enter the amount of alternative energy. The first is the amount of kW-hr generated. The second is the percentage of the total electricity use by buildings that is generated. At this time alternative energy methods that are not carbon neutral are not quantified. To apply the amount of alternative energy only one of the two methods (kW-hr or percentage) needs to be entered for CalEEMod to calculate emission reductions.

20 Available at: https://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/annualreports/annual_report_2008.pdf 480
USER’S GUIDE
59 May 2021

4.12.5 Water Mitigation
On the Water sub-screen, water mitigation can either be estimated as the percent reduction based on a water conservation strategy or the other individual mitigation measures. The CAPCOA Quantifying GHG Mitigation document includes water supply and use measures WSW-1 and WSW-2, and WUW-1 through WUW-5.

For CAPCOA Mitigation Measure WSW-3 (Use Locally Sourced Water Supply), using locallysourced water or water from less energy-intensive sources reduces the electricity and indirect CO2 emissions associated with water supply and transport because water from local or nearby groundwater basins, nearby surface water and gravity-dominated systems have smaller energyintensity factors. This mitigation measure is not included in the Water mitigation sub-screen, therefore, to implement WSW-3, the user should alter the energy intensity values in water and run a separate CalEEMod run to accommodate these values. 481
USER’S GUIDE
60 May 2021
482
USER’S GUIDE
61 May 2021

4.12.6 Solid Waste Mitigation
The user can calculate an emissions reduction for recycling waste. This mitigation measure corresponds to CAPCOA Mitigation Measure: SW-1.

4.13 Reporting
The user initiates final emission calculations by selecting the report and clicking on the Recalculate All Emissions and Run Report button. The available reports include: Annual, Summer (peak) Daily, Winter (peak) Daily, Mitigation and Summary of peak daily emissions and annual GHG emissions. A separate report viewer will appear on the screen. From this report viewer, the user can view each selected report on-screen, print each report, save each report as either a Microsoft Excel .xls file, an Adobe Acrobat .pdf file, or in the case of the Mitigation report, a Microsoft Word .doc file. It is important to note that the data presented in the Excel file has already been calculated and the calculated results are placed in the grids as text. For this reason, the user cannot change an emission value presented in an Excel file and expect the report to calculate a revised value. These values, however, can be copied to new Excel spreadsheet for any further desired calculation with the data. If the user elects to generate a Summary report, the project needs to use only the CalEEMod defaults and there can be no remarks on any page. 483
USER’S GUIDE
62 May 2021
484
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
October 18, 2022
Fernando Gaytan
Earthjustice
707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 4300
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Subject: Comments on the Port of Hueneme – Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage Facility Project (SCH No. 2020069039)
Dear Mr. Gaytan,
We have reviewed the September 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) and December 2021 Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the Port of Hueneme – Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage Facility Project (“Project”) located in the City of Oxnard (“City”). Upon review, we find that the FEIR is insufficient in addressing our concerns regarding the Project’s hazards and hazardous materials air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts. As asserted in our February 9th, 2022 comment letter, an updated EIR should be prepared to adequately evaluate the Project’s potential impacts on the environment.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Inadequate Analysis of Impacts
In our February 9th comment letter, we found that the DEIR’s finding of-less-than-significant impacts associated with Hazards and Hazardous Materials were made without an adequate evaluation of potential impacts and the findings should not be relied upon for the purposes of determining significance. To adequately disclose and mitigate Hazards and Hazardous Materials, we stated a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was necessary for the Project site. The FEIR did not address this comment adequately.

In response to comment 206-232 and 206-233 (p. 12-1199), the FEIR provides no explanation to failing to address the comment we made, that the failure to prepare a Phase I ESA was inconsistent with the City of Oxnard 2030 General Plan Safety and Hazards Chapter, which states:
485
2 Policy SH-7.12 Hazardous Material Studies. Ensure that the proponents of new development projects address hazardous materials concerns through the preparation of Phase I or Phase II hazardous materials studies for each identified site as part of the design phase for each project.

The responses provide no explanation as to why Policy SH-7.12 was not followed. As the policy states, a Phase I ESA is necessary and a an updated EIR should be prepared to include a Phase I.

Air Quality
Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions In our February 9th comment letter, we identified several issues with the DEIR’s air model (California Emissions Estimator Model, “CalEEMod”)1 that artificially reduced the Project’s construction and operational emissions. After review of the FEIR, we found that it fails to address all our concerns and maintain that the DEIR’s CalEEMod model is flawed and fails to accurately estimate the Project’s criteria air pollutant emissions. As such, we find the DEIR and FEIR to be inadequate and maintain that an updated EIR should be prepared to adequately evaluate the Project’s local and regional air quality impacts. Until a proper air quality analysis is conducted, the Project should not be approved.

Unsubstantiated Changes to Individual Construction Phase Lengths As discussed in our February 9th comment letter, the “Port of Hueneme 34-acre Temporary Vehicle Storage Facility” CalEEMod model included several unsubstantiated changes to the default individual construction phase lengths. Review of the FEIR demonstrates that the Project again fails to justify or correct this modeling error. As discussed below, we find the DEIR and FEIR to be inadequate for two reasons, and maintain that the less-than-significant air quality impact conclusion is unsubstantiated.

Specifically, regarding the changes to the default individual construction phase lengths, the FEIR states:
“The comment states that the Draft EIR fails to mention or justify the individual construction phase lengths. As shown in Appendix A to Appendix D of the Draft EIR, the construction phasing is based on the Client provided RFI. As such, any changes to the default phasing were based on the project applicant provided information. For this type of project, CalEEMod does not provide default construction information. As such, the use of applicant provided information is imperative for construction phasing inputs. No further response is needed” (emphasis added) (Response 206-241, p. 12-1201).

However, the FEIR again fail to provide the above-mentioned Client Provided RFI. As such, we cannot verify that the changes are an accurate reflection of the proposed construction schedule. According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide:
1 “CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/download-model.
486
3 “CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site- or projectspecific information, when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA.” 2

Here, until the FEIR provides the above-mentioned Client Provided RFI and shows the calculations used for the revised individual construction phase lengths, we cannot verify the changes are accurate.

These unsubstantiated changes to the individual construction phase lengths present an issue, as the construction emissions are improperly spread out over a longer period of time for some phases, but not for others. According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide, each construction phase is associated with different emissions activities (see excerpt below).3
Thus, by disproportionately altering and extending some of the individual construction phase lengths without proper justification, the model assumes there are a greater number of days to complete the construction activities required by the prolonged phases. As such, there will be less construction activities required per day and, consequently, less pollutants emitted per day. As a result, the model may underestimate the peak daily emissions associated with some phases of construction and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Thus, we reiterate our February 9th comment that the DEIR’s CalEEMod model is unsubstantiated, and the DEIR and FEIR’s less-than-significant air quality impact conclusion should not be relied upon.

Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Construction Equipment Unit Amounts As discussed in our February 9th comment letter, the “Port of Hueneme 34-acre Temporary Vehicle Storage Facility” CalEEMod model included several unsubstantiated changes to the off-road construction equipment unit amounts. Review of the FEIR demonstrates that the Project again fails to justify or correct this modeling error. As discussed below, we find the DEIR and FEIR to be inadequate and 2 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 12. 3 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 32.
487
4 maintain that the less-than-significant air quality impact conclusion is unsubstantiated. Specifically, regarding the changes to the default off-road construction equipment unit amounts, the FEIR states:
“The comment states that the Draft EIR fails to mention or justify the unit amounts of equipment. The model inputs used in the technical study are consistent with the Draft EIR’s project description, as shown in Section 1.3 of the Draft EIR. Project specific information was included in the modeling in accordance with the requirements of CalEEMod and CEQA in order to provide more project-specific analysis of potential impacts. These project specific inputs were shown in detail in Appendix D of the Draft EIR” (emphasis added) (Response 206-246, p. 12- 1201).

As demonstrated above, the FEIR states that the off-road construction equipment unit amounts were noted in Section 1.3 of the Draft EIR DEIR’s. However, upon further review, the DEIR and associated documents fail to mention or justify the off-road construction equipment unit amounts in the project description or elsewhere in the Project documents. As such, we cannot verify that the changes are an accurate reflection of the proposed construction equipment. As previously stated, according to the CalEEMod User’s Guide:
“CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site- or projectspecific information, when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA.” 4

Here, as the DEIR and FEIR fail to provide substantial evidence to support the off-road construction equipment unit amounts, we cannot verify the changes. As such, we reiterate our February 9th comment that the Project’s CalEEMod model is unsubstantiated, and the DEIR and FEIR’s less-than-significant air quality impact conclusion should not be relied upon.

Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated As discussed in our February 9th comment letter, the DEIR failed to adequately evaluate the Project’s potential health risk impacts. Review of the FEIR again demonstrates a failure to adequately evaluate the Project’s potential health risk impacts. As such, we find the FEIR to be inadequate and maintain that the DEIR’s less-than-significant impact conclusion regarding the Project’s health risk impact should not be relied upon. Regarding the toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions associated with Project construction and operation, the FEIR states:
“The comment states that the Draft EIR ignores the use of the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) Air Quality Assessment Guidelines with response to health risk impacts. The VCAPCD 2003 Guidelines, Section 6.5.1, Determining Whether the Project will Emit Toxic Air Contaminants states that lead agencies should refer to Appendix D, Major Toxic Air Contaminant Regulations and Common Toxic Air Contaminant Sources and Substances, for a list of common toxic air contaminant sources and substances that may be encountered at facilities 4 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 12.
488
5 in Ventura County and Appendix B, Common Equipment and Processes Requiring a VCAPCD Permit to Operate. The project would include offroad equipment during construction which may emit diesel particulate matter. However, construction would be temporary, lasting up to 200 days, and would not be concentrated in one area of the site. Thus, emissions would disperse rapidly and would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Furthermore, the project would not exceed applicable VCAPCD significance thresholds during construction or operation. Finally, as shown in the closest meteorological station to the project site at the Oxnard Airport, the predominant wind direction blows from the west to the east away from the closest sensitive receptors to the project site. As stated on page 1-5 of the Draft EIR, all vehicles stored at this vehicle storage facility would be light duty vehicles; no trucks or diesel-powered vehicles be stored at this facility. As such, the project would not result in air quality impacts related to diesel powered vehicles and idling trucks. Please refer to Global Response GR-4, Traffic Related Pollution and Health Risks. Regarding electrification of the Port fleet, the comment does not reference the content of nor challenge the adequacy of the Draft EIR, and no further response is required” (p. 12-1171).

Furthermore, the FEIR states:
“Commenters also claim that the Draft EIR should address health impacts related to increased diesel emissions and particulate matter. As identified in the Draft EIR (Section 5.3.5, Air Quality Project Impacts and Mitigation) Measures, pp. 5.3-12), the project would not expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of substantial pollutant concentrations exceeding state or federal standards or in excess of health risk criteria for toxic air contaminants and impacts would be less than significant. The operational and construction emissions generated by the project were remodeled in CalEEMod in the Final EIR to account for all proposed land uses, to reflect the 316 daily operational trips as discussed in the Draft EIR, and to remove certain reductions used in the Draft EIR CalEEMod analysis (see the updated emissions tables in Final EIR, Section 5.3.5, Air Quality Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures, pp. 5.3- 12, and Appendix D, CalEEMod Output Results of this Final EIR). As shown in this Final EIR, the corrections do not result in a change in any significance determination previously disclosed in the Draft EIR, nor do they indicate a substantially more severe environmental impact than was previously disclosed. Thus, the operational and construction emissions generated by the project would continue to not exceed applicable significance thresholds and would not expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of substantial pollutant concentrations exceeding state or federal standards or in excess of health risk criteria for toxic air contaminants” (Response GR-4, p. 12-10).

As demonstrated above, the FEIR claims that preparing a quantified construction and operational HRA is not necessary, as the emissions generated by the Project would not exceed applicable significance thresholds. However, this is incorrect. As discussed in our February 9th comment letter, the Project’s failure to prepare a quantified construction and operational HRA is inconsistent with the Office of 489
6 Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”).
5 As such, until both the Project’s construction and
operational health risks are quantified, summed together, and compared to the VCAPCD threshold of 10 in one million, the FEIR’s response is inadequate, and we maintain our February 9th comment that the FEIR failed to adequately evaluate the Project’s potential health risk impacts.

Greenhouse Gas
Failure to Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impacts
The FEIR estimates that the Project would generate net annual greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions of 319.8 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (“MT CO2e/year”), which does not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year (p. 5.8-12). Furthermore, the FEIR’s analysis relies upon the Project’s consistency with the City’s Energy Action Plan (“EAP”) in order to conclude that the Project would result in a less-than-significant GHG impact (p. 5.8-13). However, review of the FEIR demonstrates that the Project again fails to adequately evaluate potential GHG impacts. As discussed below, we maintain that the DEIR’s and FEIR’s GHG analyses, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, are incorrect for three reasons:
(1) The DEIR and FEIR’s quantitative GHG analysis rely upon an incorrect and unsubstantiated air model;
(2) The DEIR and FEIR rely upon an unsupported quantitative threshold; and (3) The DEIR and FEIR fail to identify a potentially significant GHG impact. 1) Incorrect and Unsubstantiated Quantitative Analysis of Emissions As discussed in our February 9th comment letter, the DEIR’s quantitative GHG analysis relied upon an incorrect and unsubstantiated air model. Review of the FEIR demonstrates that the Project again fails to justify or correct some of these modeling errors. As discussed below, we find the DEIR and FEIR to be inadequate and maintain that the Project’s less-than-significant GHG impact determination is unsubstantiated. Specifically, regarding the Project’s air modeling, the FEIR states:
“The comment states that the Draft EIR’s quantitative GHG analysis is unsubstantiated. The Final EIR is updated as reflected in Responses to Comment 206-235 through 206-258 and changes to the Draft EIR are included in Section 5.8 of the Final EIR.” (p. 12-1204).

However, this response is inadequate. While we acknowledge that the FEIR substantiated or corrected most of their modeling input parameters, the FEIR still fails to sufficiently address all of our comments regarding the Project’s flawed CalEEMod models. Specifically, the FEIR fails to provide access to the “Client provided RFI,” which is cited as justification for the revised construction-related CalEEMod input parameters, as previously discussed. As such, emissions associated with the Project remain underestimated, and the DEIR’s and FEIR’s quantitative GHG analyses should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. As such, we reiterate our February 9th comment that the DEIR’s 5 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/hotspots2015.html 490
7 CalEEMod models are unsubstantiated, and the DEIR’s and FEIR’s less-than-significant GHG impact conclusion should not be relied upon.
2) Incorrect Reliance Upon an Outdated Quantitative GHG Threshold As discussed in our February 9th comment letter, the DEIR relies upon an unsupported GHG threshold.

Review of the FEIR demonstrates that the Project again fails to adequately justify or correct this error. As discussed below, we find the DEIR and FEIR to be inadequate and maintain that the Project’s less-thansignificant GHG impact determination is unsubstantiated.

As previously stated, the FEIR estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 319.8 MT CO2e/year, which would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year (p. 5.8-12).

Regarding the DEIR’s use of an interim threshold, the FEIR states:
“The comment states that the Draft EIR incorrectly relied upon an outdated quantitative GHG threshold. The City understands that the 3,000 MT CO2e per year threshold was proposed a decade ago and was never adopted. However, the 3,000 MT CO2e per year threshold was developed and recommended by SCAQMD, an expert agency, based on substantial evidence as provided in the Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance Threshold (SCAQMD 2008) document and subsequent Working Group meetings (latest in 2010).

This threshold uses the Executive Order S-3-05 goal as the basis, so it is not tied to only the 2020 target year and is thus not outdated. This threshold is also based on the 90% capture rate methodology, which means that 90% of total emissions from all new or modified projects would be subject to some type of CEQA analysis, which was the approach taken by SCAQMD to establish the stationary/industrial source threshold, as well as by the California Air Resources Board (for interim threshold for stationary source projects) and one of the options suggested by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (quantitative threshold based on market capture). Further, this threshold has been used for hundreds, if not thousands of GHG analyses performed for projects located within the SCAQMD jurisdiction. As such, the use of the 3,000 MT CO2e threshold is appropriate and substantiated” (p. 12-1183).

However, the DEIR’s use of this threshold remains incorrect. Regardless of the FEIR’s claims, the Association of Environmental Professionals (“AEP”) guidance states:
“[F]or evaluating projects with a post 2020 horizon, the threshold will need to be revised based on a new gap analysis that would examine development and reduction potentials out to the next GHG reduction milestone (2030 or 2050).6
As discussed in our February 9th comment letter, thresholds for 2020 are not applicable to the proposed Project and should be revised to reflect the current GHG reduction target. As such, rather than relying upon the outdated 2008 SCAQMD Draft thresholds, we recommend that the Project evaluate GHG 6 “Beyond Newhall and 2020: A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California.” Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP), October 2016, available at:
https://califaep.org/docs/AEP-2016_Final_White_Paper.pdf, p. 39. 491
8 emissions per the next tier and apply the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/year, which was calculated by applying a 40% reduction to the 2020 targets.7 3) Unsubstantiated Air Model Indicates a Potentially Significant GHG Impact When applying the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year, the Project’s incorrect and unsubstantiated air model indicates a potentially significant GHG impact. 8 As previously stated, the DEIR
estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 319.8 MT CO2e/year (p. 5.8-12).

Furthermore, according to CAPCOA’s CEQA & Climate Change report, service population is defined as “the sum of the number of residents and the number of jobs supported by the project.”9 The FEIR estimates that the Project would generate approximately 14 new jobs (p. 1-6). As the Project does not include any residential land uses, we estimate a service population of 14 people. 10 When dividing the
Project’s net annual GHG emissions, as estimated by the DEIR, by a service population of 14 people, we find that the Project would emit approximately 22.8 MT CO2e/SP/year (see table below).11 FEIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions per Capita
Annual Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 319.8
Service Population 14
Service Population Efficiency (MT CO2e/SP/year) 22.8
2035 SCAQMD Efficiency Target 3.0
Exceeds? Yes
As demonstrated above, the Project’s service population efficiency value, as estimated by the DEIR’s provided net annual GHG emission estimates and service population, vastly exceeds the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year, indicating a potentially significant impact not previously identified or addressed by the DEIR or FEIR. As such, we find the FEIR to be inadequate and maintain our February 9th comment that the DEIR’s less-than-significant GHG impact determination should not be relied upon, as it is based on an outdated significance threshold. As a result, an updated EIR should be prepared, which includes an updated GHG analysis, and additional mitigation should be incorporated accordingly, per CEQA Guidelines.
7 “Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15.” SCAQMD, September 2010, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqasignificance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf, p. 2. 8 “Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15.” SCAQMD, September 2010, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqasignificance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf, p. 2. 9 CAPCOA (Jan. 2008) CEQA & Climate Change, p. 71-72, http://www.capcoa.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA-White-Paper.pdf. 10 Calculated: 0 residents + 14 employees = 14 service population. 11 Calculated: (62.3 MT CO2e/year) / (14 service population) = (4.45 MT CO2e/SP/year). 492
9 Mitigation
Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions Our analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in a potentially significant air quality and GHG impacts that should be mitigated further. In an effort to reduce the Project’s emissions, we identified several mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed Project. Therefore, to reduce the Project’s emissions, we recommend consideration of SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR’sAir Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures (“PMM-AQ-1”) and Greenhouse Gas Project Level Mitigation Measures (“PMM-GHG-1”), as described below: 12
SCAG RTP/SCS 2020-2045
Air Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures – PMM-AQ-1:

In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to violating air quality standards. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
a) Minimize land disturbance.
b) Suspend grading and earth moving when wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour unless the soil is wet enough to prevent dust plumes.
c) Cover trucks when hauling dirt.
d) Stabilize the surface of dirt piles if not removed immediately. e) Limit vehicular paths on unpaved surfaces and stabilize any temporary roads. f) Minimize unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities. g) Sweep paved streets at least once per day where there is evidence of dirt that has been carried on to the roadway.
h) Revegetate disturbed land, including vehicular paths created during construction to avoid future off-road vehicular activities.
j) Require contractors to assemble a comprehensive inventory list (i.e., make, model, engine year, horsepower, emission rates) of all heavy-duty off-road (portable and mobile) equipment (50 horsepower and greater) that could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project. Prepare a plan for approval by the applicable air district demonstrating achievement of the applicable percent reduction for a CARB-approved fleet.
k) Ensure that all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained. l) Minimize idling time to 5 minutes—saves fuel and reduces emissions. m) Provide an operational water truck on-site at all times. Use watering trucks to minimize dust; watering should be sufficient to confine dust plumes to the project work areas. Sweep paved streets at least once per day where there is evidence of dirt that has been carried on to the roadway. 12 “4.0 Mitigation Measures.” Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report Addendum #1, September 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/fpeir_connectsocal_addendum_4_mitigationmeasures.pdf?1606004420, p. 4.0-2 – 4.0-10; 4.0-19 –

4.0-23; See also: “Certified Final Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report.” Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), May 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/peir. 493
10 n) Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators.
o) Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities. The plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service.

Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. Provide a flag person to guide traffic properly and ensure safety at construction sites. p) As appropriate require that portable engines and portable engine-driven equipment units used at the project work site, with the exception of on-road and off-road motor vehicles, obtain CARB Portable Equipment Registration with the state or a local district permit. Arrange appropriate consultations with the CARB or the District to determine registration and permitting requirements prior to equipment operation at the site. q) Require projects within 500 feet of residences, hospitals, or schools to use Tier 4 equipment for all engines above 50 horsepower (hp) unless the individual project can demonstrate that Tier 4 engines would not be required to mitigate emissions below significance thresholds. s) Projects located within AB 617 communities should review the applicable Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP) for additional mitigation that can be applied to individual projects. t) Where applicable, projects should provide information about air quality related programs to schools, including the Environmental Justice Community Partnerships (EJCP), Clean Air Ranger Education (CARE), and Why Air Quality Matters programs.
u) Projects should work with local cities and counties to install adequate signage that prohibits truck idling in certain locations (e.g., near schools and sensitive receptors). w) As applicable for port projects, the following measures should be considered:
- Develop specific timelines for transitioning to zero emission cargo handling equipment (CHE) - Develop interim performance standards with a minimum amount of CHE replacement each year to ensure adequate progress.
- Use short side electric power for ships, which may include tugboats and other ocean-going vessels or develop incentives to gradually ramp up the usage of shore power. - Install the appropriate infrastructure to provide shore power to operate the ships. Electrical hookups should be appropriately sized.
- Maximize participation in the Port of Los Angeles’ Vessel Speed Reduction Program or the Port of Long Beach’s Green Flag Initiation Program in order to reduce the speed of vessel transiting within 40 nautical miles of Point Fermin.
- Encourage the participation in the Green Ship Incentives. - Offer incentives to encourage the use of on-dock rail. aa) Consult the SCAG Environmental Justice Toolbox for potential measures to address impacts to low-income and/or minority communities.
bb) The following criteria related to diesel emissions shall be implemented on by individual project sponsors as appropriate and feasible:
- Diesel nonroad vehicles on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines that meet EPA on road emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%
- Diesel generators on site for more than 10 total days shall be equipped with emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%. - Nonroad diesel engines on site shall be Tier 2 or higher. - Diesel nonroad construction equipment on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines meeting EPA Tier 4 nonroad emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB for use with nonroad engines to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85% for engines for 50 hp and greater and by a minimum of 20% for engines less than 50 hp. - Emission control technology shall be operated, maintained, and serviced as recommended by the emission control technology manufacturer.
494
11 - Diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators on site shall be fueled with ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) or a biodiesel blend approved by the original engine manufacturer with sulfur content of 15 ppm or less.
- The construction contractor shall maintain a list of all diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators to be used on site. The list shall include the following:
i. Contractor and subcontractor name and address, plus contact person responsible for the vehicles or equipment.
ii. Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment serial number, engine manufacturer, engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, engine serial number, and expected fuel usage and hours of operation.
iii. For the emission control technology installed: technology type, serial number, make, model, manufacturer, EPA/CARB verification number/level, and installation date and hour-meter reading on installation date.
- The contractor shall establish generator sites and truck-staging zones for vehicles waiting to load or unload material on site. Such zones shall be located where diesel emissions have the least impact on abutters, the general public, and especially sensitive receptors such as hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, elderly housing, and convalescent facilities. - The contractor shall maintain a monthly report that, for each on road diesel vehicle, nonroad construction equipment, or generator onsite, includes:
i. Hour-meter readings on arrival on-site, the first and last day of every month, and on off-site date.
ii. Any problems with the equipment or emission controls. iii. Certified copies of fuel deliveries for the time period that identify:

1. Source of supply

2. Quantity of fuel

3. Quantity of fuel, including sulfur content (percent by weight) Greenhouse Gas Project Level Mitigation Measures – PMM-GHG-1 In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to violating air quality standards. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
b) Reduce emissions resulting from projects through implementation of project features, project design, or other measures, such as those described in Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines. c) Include off-site measures to mitigate a project’s emissions. d) Measures that consider incorporation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) during design, construction and operation of projects to minimize GHG emissions, including but not limited to:
i. Use energy and fuel-efficient vehicles and equipment; ii. Deployment of zero- and/or near zero emission technologies; iii. Use lighting systems that are energy efficient, such as LED technology; iv. Use the minimum feasible amount of GHG-emitting construction materials; v. Use cement blended with the maximum feasible amount of flash or other materials that reduce GHG emissions from cement production;
vi. Incorporate design measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse;
vii. Incorporate design measures to reduce energy consumption and increase use of renewable energy;
viii. Incorporate design measures to reduce water consumption; ix. Use lighter-colored pavement where feasible;
495
12 x. Recycle construction debris to maximum extent feasible; xi. Plant shade trees in or near construction projects where feasible; and xii. Solicit bids that include concepts listed above.
e) Measures that encourage transit use, carpooling, bike-share and car-share programs, active transportation, and parking strategies, including, but not limited to the following:
i. Promote transit-active transportation coordinated strategies; ii. Increase bicycle carrying capacity on transit and rail vehicles; iii. Improve or increase access to transit;
iv. Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and day care; v. Incorporate affordable housing into the project;
vi. Incorporate the neighborhood electric vehicle network; vii. Orient the project toward transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; viii. Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service; ix. Provide traffic calming measures;
x. Provide bicycle parking;
xi. Limit or eliminate park supply;
xii. Unbundle parking costs;
xiii. Provide parking cash-out programs;
xiv. Implement or provide access to commute reduction program; f) Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities into project designs, maintaining these facilities, and providing amenities incentivizing their use; and planning for and building local bicycle projects that connect with the regional network;
g) Improving transit access to rail and bus routes by incentives for construction and transit facilities within developments, and/or providing dedicated shuttle service to transit stations; and h) Adopting employer trip reduction measures to reduce employee trips such as vanpool and carpool programs, providing end-of-trip facilities, and telecommuting programs including but not limited to measures that:
i. Provide car-sharing, bike sharing, and ride-sharing programs; ii. Provide transit passes;
iii. Shift single occupancy vehicle trips to carpooling or vanpooling, for example providing ridematching services; iv. Provide incentives or subsidies that increase that use of modes other than single-occupancy vehicle;
v. Provide on-site amenities at places of work, such as priority parking for carpools and vanpools, secure bike parking, and showers and locker rooms;
vi. Provide employee transportation coordinators at employment sites; vii. Provide a guaranteed ride home service to users of non-auto modes. i) Designate a percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles or high-occupancy vehicles, and provide adequate passenger loading and unloading for those vehicles; j) Land use siting and design measures that reduce GHG emissions, including:
i. Developing on infill and brownfields sites;
ii. Building compact and mixed-use developments near transit; iii. Retaining on-site mature trees and vegetation, and planting new canopy trees; iv. Measures that increase vehicle efficiency, encourage use of zero and low emissions vehicles, or reduce the carbon content of fuels, including constructing or encouraging construction of electric vehicle charging stations or neighborhood electric vehicle networks, or charging for electric bicycles; and
496
13 v. Measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse.
k) Consult the SCAG Environmental Justice Toolbox for potential measures to address impacts to low-income and/or minority communities. The measures provided above are also intended to be applied in low income and minority communities as applicable and feasible.
l) Require at least five percent of all vehicle parking spaces include electric vehicle charging stations, or at a minimum, require the appropriate infrastructure to facilitate sufficient electric charging for passenger vehicles and trucks to plug-in.
m) Encourage telecommuting and alternative work schedules, such as:
i. Staggered starting times
ii. Flexible schedules
iii. Compressed work weeks
n) Implement commute trip reduction marketing, such as:
i. New employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options ii. Event promotions
iii. Publications
q) Price workplace parking, such as:
i. Explicitly charging for parking for its employees;
ii. Implementing above market rate pricing;
iii. Validating parking only for invited guests;
iv. Not providing employee parking and transportation allowances; and v. Educating employees about available alternatives.

These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduce emissions released during Project construction and operation. An updated EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as include updated air quality and GHG analyses to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to below thresholds. The updated EIR should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.

Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.
497
14 Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Attachment A: Matt Hageman CV
Attachment B: Paul Rosenfeld CV
498
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Investigationand RemediationStrategies
LitigationSupport and Testifying Expert
IndustrialStormwaterCompliance
CEQAReview
Education:

M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.

B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.

ProfessionalCertifications:

California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
ProfessionalExperience:

Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

Positions Matt has held include:
• Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); Attachment A
499
2 • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial facilities.
• Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vaporintrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications forlarge solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.

With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Seniorresearcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Seniorresearcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.
500
3 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.

Executive Director:

As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council.

Hydrogeology:

As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.

At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted 501
4 public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.

EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.

With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.

Policy:

Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.

Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific 502
5 principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peerreview of scientific documents.

Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.

As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.

Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.

EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
503
6 Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.

Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.

Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
504
7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.

Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te ri zati on and Cl ean up at Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 505
8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009‐2011.
506

SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 October 2021
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.

M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.

B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment.

Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.

Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion.

Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources.

Attachment B
507

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 October 2021
Professional History:

Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications:

Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.

Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.

Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.
508

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 October 2021
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530.

Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.

Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.

Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.

Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.

Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.

Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.
509

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 October 2021
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.

Presentations:

Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.

Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International 510

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 October 2021
Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.
511

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 October 2021
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.

Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.

Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington. 512

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 October 2021
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Teaching Experience:

UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.

National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.

National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.

California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.

UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.

University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.

U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.

Academic Grants Awarded:

California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.

Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.

Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.

Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.

King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.

James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.
513

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 October 2021
United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.

Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 5-14-2021
Trial, October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty, Plaintiff vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a AMTRAK,
Case No.: No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition, 6-28-2021
In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe, Plaintiff vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail, Defendants
Case No.: No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition, 5-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al., Plaintiff vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.

Case Number CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition: 5-7-2021
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al Plaintiffs, vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.

Case Number 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition: 3-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.

Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.

Case No.: 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition. 8-30-2019
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019
514

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 October 2021
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.

Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19

In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No.: 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No.: 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017
In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case: No 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition, 4-22-2020
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017
515

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 October 2021
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial, March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.

Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.

Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.

Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.

Civil Action Number 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2010, June 2011
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2010
In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.

Case Number 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2009
516
1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Attn: Jay Dobrowalski
City of Oxnard
214 South C Street
Oxnard, California 93030 18 October 2022
RE: Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage
Dear Mr. Dobrowalski,
I write to reply to the Final Environmental Impact Report’s (FEIR’s) responses to my 9 February 2022 comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) in support of a proposed temporary outdoor vehicle storage facility on 33.7 acres of open space at the southeast corner of Hueneme Road and Perkins Road.

The FEIR assigns comment numbers throughout my letter, to which responses are likewise numbered. I disagree with the splitting of certain paragraphs into separate comments, but this splitting is unimportant to me. Thus, I replied according to the numbering the FEIR assigns to my comments. What is important, however, is that the responses characterized many of the numbered comments as statements or as introductions to comments to follow. In all of these instances, the FEIR concludes that no further response is required. In other words, many of my comments, which were acknowledged as such by the FEIR’s numbered labels, were then disqualified as comments in order to avoid having to respond to them. Except for two or three introductory paragraphs, which the FEIR should not have assigned comment numbers, the paragraphs I wrote were comments on the DEIR, and as comments, they merited serious responses. To many of my comments, City of Oxnard fails to provide good-faith, reasoned analyses in their responses.

My replies mostly follow the numbered responses in the order they appear in the FEIR. I consolidated a few of those that the FEIR address redundantly.

Response 206-94: “The project site is not topographically diverse and can be characterized as flat. ... the site is regularly disturbed through tilling and mowing activities... As a result, the reconnaissance-level surveys conducted by Rincon in the spring of 2018 and fall of 2020 were general in nature.” And, “the site visit and conditions suggested that no special-status plant species were expected due to the disturbed nature of the site, high degree of urbanization in the vicinity of the project site and project site’s soil profile”
Reply: In other words, a determination was made in advance that the site would provide no biological value. A grossly inadequate survey effort was then directed to wildlife at the project site, thereby confirming the pre-determination that a flat, oftendisturbed site does not support wildlife. My survey demonstrates otherwise. I did not 517
2 survey for very long, as I was only there during one evening and the following cold-andwindy early morning. Despite my brief time there and the less-than-ideal conditions, I detected 47 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 12 with special status.

The number of species I saw at the project site was about twice the number I usually detect during reconnaissance-level surveys. Furthermore, that 26% of the species I detected were special-status species was unusually high in my experience. For greater context, I updated Figure 1 from my comment letter so that it includes the 95% confidence interval based on reconnaissance surveys that my daughter and I (my daughter works for me) have completed at 15 other proposed project sites in the area between Ventura and Burbank (Figure 1). Note that the data and model predictions representative of the project site exceed the upper bound of the 95% CI. In other words, the project site supports more species of wildlife than do most other project sites I have surveyed in the area.

Figure 1. Actual and
predicted relationships
between the number of
vertebrate wildlife species
detected and the elapsed
survey time based on my
visual-scan surveys on 27-
28 January 2022. This
version of the Figure also
includes 95% confidence
intervals (CI) based on
reconnaissance surveys
my daughter and I
completed at 15 other sites
between Ventura and
Burbank.

Response 206-94: “Reconnaissance surveys document existing conditions and assess the habitat suitability for special-status species, which informs whether or not further surveys are necessary. The survey’s site visits were timed for performing a general reconnaissance survey, which can be performed any time of the year.” 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Minutes into survey
0 10
20 30
40 50
Cumulative number of wildlife species detected
Actual species count, 27th
Model prediction
r
2 = 0.99, loss = 53.8
Model prediction
r
2 = 0.99, loss = 28.1
Actual species count, 28th
95% CI, surveys at 15
nearby sites, 2018-2022
518
3 Reply: According to the response, the surveys were timed to achieve the standard of general reconnaissance surveys being completed at any time of year; in other words, the survey timing met no standard at all. In fact, no standard for the timing of general reconnaissance surveys exists as they apply to wildlife, just as no protocol or guidance exists for general reconnaissance surveys directed to wildlife. The scientific literature is silent on general reconnaissance surveys, because such surveys have been invented by the environmental consulting industry and lack scientific vetting. These surveys have been contrived to achieve objectives that are scientifically indefensible. Below I explain why these surveys are inappropriate to the purpose that City of Oxnard applies them.

To CEQA’s primary objective to disclose potential environmental impacts of a proposed project, it helps for both the analysis and the public to be informed of which biological species are known to occur at the proposed project site, which special-status species are likely to occur, as well as the limitations of the survey effort directed to the site. Analysts need this information to characterize the environmental setting as a basis for opining on, or predicting, potential project impacts to biological resources.

There are three types of survey for wildlife at a project site that are typical of CEQA review. One is known as a species-specific detection survey, which follows a methodological protocol formulated by experts on the species. The protocol balances cost against a reasonable likelihood of detection should the species be present. If the protocol is followed, but the species is not detected, then the negative outcome of the detection survey can serve as support for an absence determination, i.e., the species at issue can be determined absent from the site for however long the protocol specifies. It is therefore important that the details of the detection survey be reported so that the reader can compare these details to the minimum standards of the detection survey protocol. In this case, no detection surveys were completed for any special-status species.

Two other types of survey for wildlife at proposed project sites are known as reconnaissance survey, otherwise known as general survey, and habitat assessment. The typical objective of reconnaissance survey is to inventory the species that compose the wildlife community, whereas that of habitat assessment is to assign occurrence likelihoods to special-status species based on documented associations between each species and environmental settings. Unlike the carefully formulated protocols of detection surveys, reconnaissance surveys and habitat assessments lack formal standards of implementation and interpretation. The outcome of a 5-minute reconnaissance survey should not be afforded the same credibility as that of a 5-hour reconnaissance survey, but no guidance is available on how long a reconnaissance survey should last or what its findings should mean. It is therefore very important that the methodological details of reconnaissance surveys and habitat assessments be reported. It is just as important that the standards of interpretation be reported, along with sources of uncertainty and bias.

Sources of potential uncertainty and bias abound in reconnaissance surveys for the purpose of wildlife species inventory. Biologists vary in their skill at detecting wildlife species, and all are imperfect observers. After all, some species are large, loud, colorful 519
4 or abundant, and can readily be seen during diurnal surveys, whereas others are tiny, quiet, cryptic or rare, or are detectable only by night or by trapping or use of remotesensing technology. In my experience, some species typically do not reveal themselves until I have been on the survey station for 20 minutes, 30 minutes, or for hours. The inventory will be the product of the amount of survey time and the range of survey methods invested. As examples, because nocturnal surveys and trapping with live bait are rarely implemented as part of reconnaissance surveys, bats and shrews rarely find their places on species inventories at proposed project sites. Membership on an inventory can also carry different meanings based on how each species occurs at the site.

Whereas some species are resident year-round, others can be seasonal or ephemeral in their occurrences at a site. Should a species be included on an inventory depends on the analyst’s standard of what counts as presence, but that standard should be reported so that the public can decide whether to agree with it. (The DEIR reports no such standard.) In short, reconnaissance survey can only sample the true suite of wildlife species of a site, and most often, the sample will be biased against the rare, sensitive and threatened or endangered species that CEQA is most concerned about.

Reconnaissance surveys occasionally reveal the presence of special-status species, sometimes due to the skill of the observer but often due to luck of survey timing. What these surveys cannot reveal is the absences of any species whose geographic ranges overlap the site and whose habitat associations at all resemble conditions of the site.

And it is habitat associations that consulting biologists often rely upon to determine likelihoods of occurrence of special-status species. Unfortunately, habitat associations often poorly comport with the habitat concept, which is that habitat is that part of the environment that is used by a species (Hall et al. 1997), and which is described by scientists through measurement (Smallwood 2002). Habitat associations defined by consulting biologists typically lack foundation in actual measurements of habitat use, and are therefore speculative and prone to error. One source of error is to map vegetation complexes as habitat types, to which consulting biologists assign species by association without concern for the unrealistically hard boundaries that divide the mapped habitat types (see Figure 2 of Rincon 2018). Another source of error is to pigeon-hole species into unrealistically narrow portions of the environment, which can then be said not to exist on the project site (for examples, see wildlife habitat descriptions in Appendix FA Follow-Up Biological Resources Inventory – 2022). A third source of error is to assign functions to habitat for the purpose of dividing habitat into unrealistic functional parts, such as between breeding habitat versus foraging habitat (for examples, see wildlife habitat descriptions in Appendix FA Follow-Up Biological Resources Inventory – 2022). Primacy is assigned to breeding habitat, which often can be said not to exist on the project site. In reality, all parts of an animal’s habitat are essential to breeding success, regardless of where breeding opportunities occur. 1 1 Animals unable to find sufficient forage, refugia, or travel opportunities are just as unable to reproduce as those unable to find sufficient nest-site opportunities. Per the precautionary principle of risk analysis and consistent with the habitat concept, CEQA review should be based on the broadest of available habitat characterizations, which should be interpreted on the whole rather than contrived functional parts. Any detections of a species on or over a site, regardless of time of year, should be interpreted as that species’ use of habitat, any part of which is critical to breeding success. 520
5 Given the true cost of species inventory, the temptation to shortcut the analysis of occurrence likelihoods is understandable. In the spirit and intent of CEQA, a reasonably feasible sampling of the species inventory should be the first objective of reconnaissance surveys. Several approaches to sound interpretation of the sampled inventory are defensible. One is to commit to a survey effort that results in the detection of a sufficient number of species to accurately estimate the number of species yet to be detected, which is the approach I applied in my comment letter. A second approach is to honestly report the uncertainties and biases of the characterizations of the species inventory and of the likelihoods of occurrence of special-status species. In the third approach, the analyst can assume species are present until suitable evidence is acquired in support of an absence determination. This last approach would be consistent with the precautionary principle of risk analysis directed toward rare and precious resources (National Research Council 1986) and with the tenets of protocol-level detection surveys formulated by experts on each special-status species. Regardless of the approach, most important is to refrain from determining species are absent before sufficient survey has been completed, and to refrain from asserting certainty in the species inventory when that certainty is unjustified.

Returning to the response’s point that reconnaissance surveys can be performed any time of the year, I concur. One can perform a reconnaissance survey any time of year or any time of day. I have completed hundreds of wildlife surveys in all seasons of the year and all times of day and night. But I also quantify the effects of survey timing, because survey timing bears strongly on survey findings. The scientific literature is full of seasonal patterns of occurrence and abundance of many wildlife species. Recently I tested for time-of-day effects on the outcomes of reconnaissance-level surveys. To compare the data between surveys at two sites, I normalized the number of species detected as a proportion of the maximum number detected across all 5 surveys per site.

Figure 2 shows a mirrored relationship between number of species detected and time of day when each 2-hour visual-scan survey began. Temperature could explain some of the variation in survey outcomes, but the effect of time of day was strongest and appears robust. Although one can perform reconnaissance surveys at any time of year and any time of day, one needs to interpret the survey outcomes in light of seasonal and time-ofday patterns of species detection likelihood.

Response 206-97: “...site conditions are unlikely to support sustained ground squirrel populations or associated burrowing owl populations.”
Reply: This response does not comport with the ground squirrels I saw and photographed in the middle of the project site (see Photo 4 of my comment letter).

Ground squirrels inhabit burrow complexes at the rate of 1.89 adults per burrow complex on average (Smallwood unpublished data), and burrow complexes support many generations over long periods of time. That ground squirrels occur in the middle of the project site is evidence of a sustained ground squirrel population despite disturbances to the site.
521
6 Figure 2. Numbers of
species detected as
proportion of the
maximum number
detected among the 5
surveys per project site,
and as a function of start
time during the day. The
red symbols represent
Greentree and the blue
symbols represent the
comparison project site.

Response 206-97: “As described in the updated assessment, burrowing owls are only known to winter in the Oxnard Plains.”
Reply: As I commented in my 9 February comment letter, records of burrowing owl occurrence are “very close” to the project site. The blue teardrop symbols in Figure 3 represent locations of 29 burrowing owl occurrence records within only 1 mile of the site. That the records are winter occurrences qualifies them as no less important to burrowing owl nest success than had they represented nest sites. Burrowing owls that cannot acquire sufficient forage over winter, or cannot survive the winter, cannot successfully breed.

Burrowing owls naturally shift locations between breeding and non-breeding seasons. I studied the phenomenon over one full year of repeat surveys across a large study area in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties (Smallwood et al. 2013), where I found that the relocation of burrowing owls from nesting colonies to over-wintering sites was densitydependent (Figure 4). The negative density-dependent relationship suggest that burrowing owls need to rest their prey-base in breeding areas, or they need to find more abundant prey where they did not breed, or they need to escape predator or parasite loads, or all of the above. Whatever, the reason, winter sites are of high importance to burrowing owls, and should not be minimalized as they are in the FEIR.

Hour of day
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0.4 0.5

0.6 0.7

0.8 0.9

1.0 Species as proportion of
max number counted
522
7 Figure 3. eBird
occurrence records of
burrowing owl within 1
mile of the project site.

The blue teardrop
symbols are where 29 sightings have been
reported.

Figure 4. Among 46
sampling plots across a
167-km
2 study area in the
Altamont Pass,
burrowing owl density in
winter was a negative
function of density in the
breeding season,
meaning that burrowing
owls needed to leave
breeding-season
locations to winter where
fewer burrowing owls
nested in spring. -20 -15 -10-505
10 15
20 Y = 2.889 – 0.428X r2 = 0.27, SE = 6.07, P = 0.0001
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Burrowing owls/km
2 in spring 2011
Change in burrowing owls/km2 from
spring 2011 to following winter
523
8 Response 206-97: “the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (August 2022) and eBird.org (August 2022) occurrences suggest that burrowing owls utilize Ormond Beach and the game preserve, areas with little disturbance and higher quality habitat for this species.”
Reply: The CNDDB and eBird records provide no such evidence. Twelve of the eBird records were at the beach, where disturbance is a defining feature of the beach. Sixteen of the eBird records were located along Edison Drive, bordered on both sides by agricultural fields – fields mostly used for sod production. Photos of the owls depict bare ground and packed earth indicative of disturbance. The conditions where these burrowing owls were reported mirror conditions I myself have many times found and recorded burrowing owls. Burrowing owls are often characterized as disturbanceadapted species.

Furthermore, the CNDDB and eBird records are based on locations where volunteer reporters of the records happened to visit. They do not represent any sort of scientific survey of the project area. As noted by CNDDB, “The CNDDB is a positive sighting database. It does not predict where something may be found. We map occurrences only where we have documentation that the species was found at the site. There are many areas of the state where no surveys have been conducted and therefore there is nothing on the map. That does not mean that there are no special status species present.” 2 The conclusion drawn in Response 206-97 cannot be supported by species occurrence databases, and therefore is purely speculative. Without completion of detection surveys that meet the standards of CDFW (2012), the FEIR cannot defend a conclusion of absence nor even of low likelihood of occurrence.

Response 206-97: “Although the site may support a small temporary population of insects and small rodents in between disturbance activities, the site is unlikely to support sustained and abundant prey populations due to the disturbances. In addition, prey resources are likely more abundant in the adjacent open space areas which would likely attract any burrowing owl traversing across the region.” Reply: The response is speculative; it is unsupported by evidence. The site supports ground squirrels, which are not small mammals that come and go between disturbances.

Considering that ground squirrels persist through disturbances of the site, it is reasonable to conclude that many other species of wildlife, include arthropod populations, also persist through disturbances.

Response 206-97: “The preconstruction wildlife survey would similarly be sufficient to document any wintering burrowing owls or California horned lark, should they occur on-site.”
Reply: The response is incorrect. As I commented in my 9 February 2022 letter, wintering burrowing owls are difficult to detect. At minimum, the surveys would need to 2 State of California Department of Fish and Game, California Natural Diversity Database, CNDDB Data Use Guidelines, p. 12. Available at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=27285&inline. 524
9 achieve the standards of CDFW (2012), but more realistically, the surveys carry about a 10% chance of detection of wintering burrowing owls. I will add that horned larks can also be missed during preconstruction surveys.

Response 206-105: “Given the temporary use of the site for outdoor vehicle storage for a maximum of 5 years and that the proposed project does not include permanent structures, the proposed project does not preclude future non-industrial uses.” Reply: After 5 years of cover by gravel and cars, the soils would be dead, meaning the living constituents of soil would be dead. All animal burrow would be destroyed. The biologically productive capacity of the site would be severely depleted.

Response 206-107: “...no special-status species are expected to be present on site.” Reply: Special-status species are already present on site, as documented in my comment letter. On and over the site I observed Vaux’s swift, California gull, western gull, double-crested cormorant, turkey vulture, red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, merlin, and either Belding’s or Large-billed savannah sparrow. Just off site I observed Allen’s hummingbird, northern harrier, and loggerhead shrike. But these are not the only special-status species occurring at and next to the site (most likely, those I saw next to the site also use the project site – I just did not see them do so while I was there).

Using an analytical bridge to a large research effort I completed in Northern California, I predicted in my comment letter that over the course of a year or longer, repeated visualcan surveys would eventually detect at least 158 species of vertebrate wildlife. Assuming my ratio of special-status to non-special-status species was to hold with through the detections of all 158 species predicted by my analytical bridge between my survey outcome and the larger research effort in Northern California, then continued surveys would eventually detect 41 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife.

Response 206-110 and Response 206-313: “The project proposes to establish 20- foot tall security lighting around the perimeter of the site. The placement of the lights is intended to minimize lighting impacts to the natural habitat south of the project site.” Reply: Even so placed, the security lighting would add light pollution to the protected habitat area to the south. If the project goes forward, minimization of impacts should be implemented, but as I commented in my letter of 9 February 2022, I recommend reducing the number of lights. Compensatory mitigation would be warranted for the impacts of artificial lighting that could not be avoided despite minimization measures.

Response 206-111 and Response 206-314: The response opines that landscaping along the fence would prevent bird-fence collision and entanglement mortality.

Reply: The response provides no evidence that landscaping would accomplish the impact minimization it asserts. I am not aware of any evidence that would support the FEIR’s response. In fact, I do not see any reason why landscaping along the fence would not increase bird-fence collision and entanglement mortality. While recently visiting a proposed project site not far from this one, my daughter came upon yet another 525
10 collision/entanglement victim (Photo 1). My prediction remains. Based on empirical evidence from fatality monitoring along fences, I predict 26.5 (95% CI: 20–37) bird fatalities per year. Adult birds killed on the fence could also leave behind chicks on the nest, which would be at greater risk of dying on the nest. As the FEIR stands, these fatalities would not be mitigated, and in my opinion, they would qualify as a significant impact to birds.

Photo 1. Fledgling house
finch that fatally collided
with a perimeter security
fence in Oxnard,
California, 26 June 2022.

Photo by Noriko
Smallwood.

Response 206-112: “During this temporary project, the project site will not offer any foraging habitat except for the perimeter vegetation, and it will be unlikely that wildlife would utilize the interior of the site. The probability that wildlife would utilize the project site or the immediate area is unlikely given the urban nature of the project site and the surrounding vicinity.”
Reply: Even with cars and gravel covering what was once productive soil, wildlife would use the site, just not in all the same ways nor at the same level. The airspace over the site composes part of the aerosphere (Kunz et al. 2008). The aerosphere is where birds and bats and other volant animals with wings migrate, disperse, forage, perform courtship and where some of them mate (Davy et al. 2017, Diehl et al. 2017). The aerosphere is habitat (Kunz et al. 2008). Birds would continue to fly over the site, and some would perch on security lights, the security fence, on the office structure, and on cars.
526
11 Response 206-112: “The project includes fencing around the perimeter of the site and fencing will function to redirect birds such as raptors to fly higher if they are flying near the road.”
Reply: Again, demonstrating the hazard of speculation, the response mischaracterizes how birds react to fences and other structures when passing over them. I have long studied this phenomenon, including how birds react to powerlines, wind turbines and fences. Birds typically flap hard to ascend high enough to pass over the barrier, and then once cleared, immediately drop in altitude on the other side of the barrier (Photo 2). (I have many photos of this behavior, but Photo 2 was the easiest to find and present.) This behavior contributes to how birds often collide with auto traffic. After clearing a structure such as powerlines, a fence, or even a large shipping truck, birds temporarily lose some flight control and have difficulty avoiding secondary obstacles.

Photo 2. White-faced ibises flap hard to ascend to avoid colliding with distribution lines before descending after having cleared the lines. Photos by Shawn Smallwood.

Response 206-114: In response to the issue raised about the DEIR’s flawed analysis of whether the project would interfere with wildlife movement, the FEIR writes “Please refer to response in comment 206-111. Also, as discussed on page 5.10-12 of the Draft EIR, through implementation of Standard Conditions SC HYD-1 through SC HYD-4, the project would be required to adhere to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit requirements which is consistent with the Clean Water Act. In addition, as stated on page 5.10-17 of the Draft EIR, the project would adhere to the NPDES requirements for the Construction General Permit and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program that includes required best management practices (BMPs) and good housekeeping practices, for the protection of the adjacent wetlands.” Reply: Response 206-111 bears only on the security fence allowing small mammals to pass through gaps left in the fence, but otherwise has not bearing on the issue. The remainder of the response, which refers to various permits the project applicant would obtain regarding pollution discharge and construction, has no bearing on the issue of 527
12 wildlife movement. It would seem the preparers of the FEIR put this part of the response in the wrong place.

Response 206-120: “The project will have a negligible effect on adjacent wetlands due to the temporary nature of the project...”
Reply: I suggest revising the EIR to more convincingly assure that the project would be temporary. The surest way to assure of the temporary nature of the project is to add a mitigation measure to restore the soils of the site to full productive capacity, including the capacity to support native vegetation, fossorial mammal burrows and species of wildlife appropriate to the area.

Response 206-285: “The City acknowledges the comment as a statement.” Reply: My comment was a comment. And my comment posed implications for the accuracy of the DEIR’s characterization of the project’s environmental setting. Only 3 person-hours of reconnaissance-level survey were committed to the project site, during which time only 7 species of vertebrate wildlife were reportedly detected. I detected 6.7 times the number of species at 3.5 times the number of species per hour than did Rincon (2018). My comment noted that I consider my own survey effort as merely a starting point toward characterizing the environmental setting, which means that Rincon’s (2018) survey effort had yet to reach any sort of starting point. Of the 158 species of vertebrate wildlife my comment letter predicts as a minimum number of species using the project site, Rincon (2018) detected 4.4%. From this level of sampling of the species inventory, the EIR is incapable of accurately characterizing the wildlife community as part of the existing environmental setting.

Response 206-286: “The City acknowledges the comment as a statement.” Reply: My comment was for the need to appropriately interpret reconnaissance survey results. Rincon (2018) and then the DEIR treat the Rincon (2018) survey results as if they were determinant regarding the likelihoods of occurrence of many species of wildlife. For example, Response 206-306 includes the assertion, “Reconnaissance surveys documented existing conditions and assessed the habitat suitability for specialstatus species.” The surveys did not accomplish either of these outcomes. Seeing only 7 wildlife species did not document existing conditions. The results of the Rincon (2018) surveys are treated as if they were protocol-level detection surveys, which they were not.

The DEIR is misleading in its interpretation of Rincon’s (2018) survey results.

Response 206-288: “The City acknowledges the comment as a statement.” Reply: My comment was an analysis, not a statement. My analysis led to a predicted number of species of vertebrate wildlife likely to use the site over the long-term – much longer than the very brief surveys completed by both Rincon (2018) and myself. The DEIR presents no similar analysis, which leaves the reader with the false impression that the 7 species seen by Rincon (2018) were all the species to be seen on the project site.
528
13 Response 206-289: “The City acknowledges the comment as a statement.” Reply: My comment was an analysis, not a statement. This analysis goes to the probability of detection of special-status species, which the DEIR does not address. A brief survey is unlikely to detect many of the special-status species that use a particular site, but an empirical foundation is available to calculate the probability of detection of a special-status species based on a survey outcome. My comment provided an example that was directed toward listed species including California Fully Protected species.

Since my comment letter, I updated my analysis based on a larger data set. My larger data set predicts an 80% probability of detecting a listed species at the project site based on my survey effort, but only a 5% probability of doing so based on the survey effort of Rincon (2018). If the savannah sparrows I saw on site were Belding’s savannah sparrows, then I beat the odds. It probably would have taken many surveys by Rincon (2018) to detect a listed species, due to their relatively unproductive survey, but the point of my comment is that Rincon’s failure to detect a listed species is likely more of a reflection of their insufficient survey effort than it is of wildlife species occurrences.

Figure 5. Probability of
detecting ≥1 Candidate,
Threatened or Endangered
Species of wildlife listed under
California or federal Endangered
Species Acts, based on survey
outcomes logit-regressed on the
number of wildlife species I
detected during 199 site visits in
California. The dashed vertical
line represents the number of
species detected by Rincon and
the solid vertical line represents
the number I detected.

Response 206-291: “The City acknowledges the comment as a statement.” Reply: My comment was an analysis, not a statement. Henceforth, I will not reply to responses that mischaracterize my comments as statements.

Response 206-292: “According to the most recent CDFW Special Animal’s List (July 2022), the red-tailed hawk is not designated as a special-status species, and doublecrested cormorants are a Watch List species for nesting colonies.” 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0
Number of species detected
Probability of detecting Fully Protected,
Candidate, Threatened or Endangered Species
Hosmer Lemeshow =3.48, P = 0.90
95% CI
199 sites
529
14 Reply: The response warrants a review of which species need to be considered as special-status species. §15380 of the CEQA Guidelines defines special-status species as Endangered, Rare, or Threatened, and it further defines each of these terms. Rare is defined as “(A) Although not presently threatened with extinction, the species is existing in such small numbers throughout all or a significant portion of its range that it may become endangered if its environment worsens; or (B) The species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range and may be considered “threatened” as that term is used in the Federal Endangered Species Act.” Thus, rare species need not be listed species.

Importantly, CEQA Guideline 15125(c) provides that in describing the environmental setting “special emphasis should be placed on environmental resources that are rare or unique to the region and would be affected by the project.” The California Resources Agency’s Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA includes Appendix G, which requires that the proposed project be evaluated for whether it may have a substantial adverse effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Wildlife and US Fish and Wildlife Service.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife in turn defines a Species of Special Concern to be a species that:
• is extirpated from the State or, in the case of birds, is extirpated in its primary season or breeding role;
• is listed as Federally-, but not State-, threatened or endangered; meets the State definition of threatened or endangered but has not formally been listed; • is experiencing, or formerly experienced, serious (noncyclical) population declines or range retractions (not reversed) that, if continued or resumed, could qualify it for State threatened or endangered status;
• has naturally small populations exhibiting high susceptibility to risk from any factor(s), that if realized, could lead to declines that would qualify it for State threatened or endangered status.

The species I identified as special-status species are consistent with how CEQA defines special-status species.

The meanings of CEQA’s defining terms for a species’ special status differ, but their differences also broaden the suite of species that CEQA intends should be considered as special-status species. The meanings of the terms Rare and Sensitive also often underly the inclusions of species on special-status species lists compiled by resource agencies.

Rareness can apply to species that have been diminished in abundance or geographic extent, or it can apply to species that are naturally scarce owing to their position at the top of the food-chain or to some other ecological factor. Rareness can also apply to species that are endemic to a region, even though such species can be abundant within their limited geographic range, e.g., yellow-billed magpie and Nuttall’s woodpecker.

Sensitive can apply to species that respond more adversely than other species to changes 530
15 to their environment, often due to susceptibility to pollutants or pathogens or to the loss or degradation of a narrow portion of the environment on which the species relied. For example, burrowing owls often but not always depend on ground squirrels for the squirrels’ provisions of burrows as nest sites and for their mutual predator-alarm calling. Therefore, burrowing owls are sensitive to human changes to the environment that diminish ground squirrels.

The CEQA definition is consistent with how I identified special-status species in Table 2 of my comment letter. I rely on the status assigned each species in California’s Special Animal List (California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Diversity Database.

November 2021. Special Animals List. Periodic publication) – a list that is updated annually and often relied upon for CEQA reviews. The Special Animals List compiles designations of special status to species from various agencies and for various reasons.

According to policy of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding species of special concern (SSC) (https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation /SSC#394871319- how-are-sscs-addressed-under-the-california-environmental-quality-act), “SSCs should be considered during the environmental review process. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; California Public Resources Code §§ 21000-21177) requires State agencies, local governments, and special districts to evaluate and disclose impacts from "projects" in the State. Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines clearly indicates that species of special concern should be included in an analysis of project impacts if they can be shown to meet the criteria of sensitivity outlined therein. Sections 15063 and 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines, which address how an impact is identified as significant, are particularly relevant to SSCs. Project-level impacts to listed (rare, threatened, or endangered species) species are generally considered significant thus requiring lead agencies to prepare an Environmental Impact Report to fully analyze and evaluate the impacts. In assigning "impact significance" to populations of nonlisted species, analysts usually consider factors such as population-level effects, proportion of the taxon's range affected by a project, regional effects, and impacts to habitat features.”
The US Fish and Wildlife Service circulates a list of Birds of Conservation Concern. This list is of “all migratory nongame birds that without additional conservation action are likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973.” Factors contributing to this list are “population abundance and trends, threats on breeding and nonbreeding grounds, and size of breeding and nonbreeding ranges.” I rely on this list.

Raptors are protected by California Fish and Game Code 3503.5, otherwise known as the Birds of Prey Code. Raptors are protected by this Code because raptors are top predators wherever they live. Their positions in the food chain naturally require that they are rare, which is one of the key conditions – and one of the key words – that meets the CEQA definition of special-status species. Species that are naturally rare, such as species of raptor, are more likely identified as special-status species, e.g., California condor, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, burrowing owl, spotted owl, whereas fewer of the naturally abundant species are so identified, such as songbirds. I consider raptors protected by CFG Code 3503.5 to be special-status species. 531
16 Some species of bat are listed or designated as California Species of Special Concern, but others are assigned conservation priority rankings the Western Bat Working Group (WBWG), which California Department of Fish and Wildlife relies upon and which CDFW tracks in its list of California’ special animals. I consider bats with WBWG conservation priority rankings of medium and high to be special-status species.

And then there are the bird species assigned to the Taxa to Watch List in California.

These assignments are again assignments of special status; otherwise, there would be no point to assigning them to the Taxa to Watch List. Specifically, they are species that were earlier assigned special concern, but which did not rank as high as those species currently on the list of Species of Special Concern (Shuford and Gardali 2008).

Nevertheless, CDFW commissioned the development of this list, and would not have done so without concern for the rarity and sensitivity of the species listed. I rely on this list.

For the reasons summarized above, the FEIR response relies on a flawed premise for its scope of analysis of potential impacts to biological resources, and for its accusation that I defined special status too broadly.

Response 206-294 and Response 206-295: “An updated biological assessment considering special-status species potential to occur was performed and is provided as Appendix FA to the Final EIR. This updated assessment expanded the database review for the USGS quadrangles including the project site and surrounding eight quadrangles (“nine-quad search”).”
Reply: Appendix FA of the FEIR screens out species from further consideration if CNDDB occurrence records do not exist within USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles including and adjacent to the site. By relying on CNDDB records to determine species’ absences, the DEIR misapplies CNDDB. CNDDB was not designed to support absence determinations or to screen out species from characterization of a site’s wildlife community.

Response 206-296: “An updated biological assessment considering species potential to occur was performed and is provided as Appendix FA to the Final EIR.” Reply: The response does not address my comment, which was about the need to complete an adequate survey effort. My comment was not suggesting more database review and speculation about species occurrence likelihoods, but it instead suggested more visits to the project site to actually survey for wildlife.

Response 206-300: “The City acknowledges the comment as an introduction to comments that follow.”
Reply: My comment was not an introduction to comments that followed. It was a stand-alone comment, pointing out that based on years of experience studying 532
17 burrowing owls, the occurrence of ground squirrels is a good precursor to finding burrowing owls. The response does not address my comment.

Response 206-301: “The reconnaissance-level surveys conducted by Rincon were general in nature. Reconnaissance surveys document existing conditions and assess the habitat suitability for special-status species, which informs whether or not further surveys are necessary.”
Reply: With ground squirrels on the project site, protocol-level detection surveys are warranted. Presence of ground squirrels is just the sort of finding that typically prompts implementation of the CDFW (2012) survey guidelines. However, I am the one who found and reported ground squirrels on the project site. Rincon (2018) did not report having detected ground squirrels, and the DEIR makes no mention of ground squirrels occurring on site. In other words, the reconnaissance surveys missed an easily detectable species, which was also an ecological keystone species, the presence of which typically prompts implementation of the burrowing owl survey guidelines. This outcome goes to show that the premise of Response 206-301 is grossly flawed. The general reconnaissance survey failed to accurately assess the site’s habitat potential for burrowing owls.

Response 206-301: “Burrowing owls are opportunistic feeders and primarily feed on insects (e.g., grasshoppers, crickets, moths, beetles) and small mammals; and pursue other prey as opportunities arise.” And “the site is unlikely to support sustained and abundant prey populations due to the disturbances. ... Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to significant affect burrowing own [sic] foraging habitat or significantly affect prey populations.”
Reply: This characterization of foraging behavior is inaccurate. I have studied burrowing owl foraging behavior for years, during both day and night. At night, burrowing owls actively forage at specific locations for specific types of animals.

Burrowing owls will also prey on species as opportunities arise, but their principal foraging strategy is targeted, active hovering over specific locations. They often travel 400 m and farther from their burrows to forage.

Response 206-302: “The comment states that Rincon (2018) per the Draft EIR offers no survey findings of wildlife on adjacent properties, such as the property to the south that is undergoing habitat restoration by The Nature Conservancy. At the closest point, the Ormond Lagoon Waterway is located approximately 110 feet of the very southeast edge of the project parcel. However, as shown on Exhibit 5.1-5 of the Draft EIR (Photometric Plan), the proposed lighting will not directly spill into the adjacent open space.”
Reply: The comment addressed by the Response had nothing to do with lighting. My comment was directed toward the adequacy of the characterization of the existing environmental setting; I had not even gotten to potential project impact yet.

Response 206-303: “Please refer to response to comment 206-302.” 533
18 Reply: My comment about Belding’s savannah sparrow (or possibly large-billed savannah sparrow) had nothing to do with the potential impacts of lighting at this point in my letter. I was addressing the adequacy of the characterization of the existing environmental setting.

Response 206-308: “Please refer to response to comment 206-111.” Reply: I fail to understand what Response 206-111 has to do with my comment on the impact of habitat loss to total bird nesting density.

Response 206-308: “following project operations, the proposed vehicle parking area, guard house, portable restroom, perimeter site lighting, and gravel surface would be removed, allowing for other types of development to be proposed.” Reply: I fail to understand how preparation of the site for its next stage of development is going to do anything to avoid, minimize, rectify or compensate for the impact of habitat loss on total bird nest density.

Response 206-308: “For the aforementioned reasons, because impacts are less than significant, mitigation measures are not required.”
Reply: Nothing about the response indicates that my impact prediction would be any less than I presented in my comment.

Response 206-310: “Please refer to response to comment 206-308.” Reply: Response 206-308 does not address my predicted annual loss of 1,907 birds that would be caused by the project. Since my comments of 9 February 2022, my method for estimating total bird density and the number of birds that would be denied California due to habitat loss was peer-reviewed and published (Smallwood 2022).

Response 206-311 and Response 206-312: “Please refer to response to comment 206-308.”
Reply: Response 206-308 does not address my comment, especially my comment on specific species likely to lose habitat as a result of the project. Also, I must point out that Response 206-308 is confusing and therefore of little informative value. According to the Response, “...following project operations, the proposed vehicle parking area, guard house, portable restroom, perimeter site lighting, and gravel surface would be removed, allowing for other types of development to be proposed. Given the temporary use of the site for outdoor vehicle storage for a maximum of 5 years and that the proposed project does not include permanent structures, the proposed project does not preclude future non-industrial uses.” The Response says that the proposed project would clear the way for a subsequent develop project, which does not preclude non-industrial uses. In other words, anything can happen. What would not happen, however, is a return to the 534
19 productive capacity for wildlife that the site provides now. The soil would be dead after being covered by gravel and cars for 5 years.

Response 206-315: “The City acknowledges the comment as a statement. No further response is required.”
Reply: My comment was a comment. I identified special-status species of birds that I witnessed flying over the project site. I photographed some of these birds and inserted the photos to my comment letter as substantial evidence in the record. The FEIR does not seriously address my comment.

Response 206-316: “Please refer to response to comment 206-308.” Reply: The FEIR provides no response specific to my comment that the DEIR adopts a false CEQA standard to analyze potential project interference with wildlife movement in the region.

Response 206-317: “During this temporary project, the project site will not offer any foraging habitat, and it will be unlikely that species would utilize the site. The project includes fencing around the perimeter of the site and fencing will function to redirect species such as raptors.”
Reply: The impact of which I commented – wildlife-automobile collision mortality – would not take place on the project site, but rather on the roads traversed by traffic generated by the project. The response is misdirected and entirely misses the meaning of my comment.

Response 206-317: “The additional biological analysis will take all potential impacts into consideration.”
Reply: The meaning of this response is lost on me. I found no additional biological analysis in the FEIR, nor did I find any analysis of automobile collision mortality.

Response 206-319: “The City acknowledges the comment as an introduction to comments that follow. No further response is required.” Reply: My comment was not an introduction to comments to follow. It presented an analysis leading to a prediction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for the purpose of predicting wildlife mortality that would result from project-generated traffic. I included my analysis because VMT is an important predictor variable in my analysis of wildlifeautomobile mortality caused by project-generated traffic. The DEIR failed to report a prediction of VMT, so based on my experience with reviewing VMT predicted for other proposed projects, I predicted VMT based on the average miles attributed to commuting employees and based on daily vehicle delivery mileage reported in the DEIR.

In response to comments on the DEIR, the FEIR (pages 12-13 and 12-14) reports a prediction of 475 daily VMT attributed to vehicle deliveries to and from the project site. 535
20 The FEIR does not report VMT attributed to employee commute, so I will continue to rely on my assumption of my original analysis to again predict 219,000 annual VMT for employee commute. This latter rate added to the revised 173,375 annual VMT for vehicle deliveries yields 392,375 annual VMT for the project, which is a larger VMT than I had predicted in my 9 February 2022 comment letter. I therefore update my wildlife mortality prediction. Based on the methods summarized in my comment letter, I predict 215 wildlife fatalities per year caused by project-generated traffic. In my opinion, based on the evidence provided by the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study and my prediction of the project’s annual VMT on local roads, it is my opinion that the project’s toll on wildlife due to wildlife-vehicle collision mortality would qualify as an unmitigated significant impact to wildlife.

Response 206-320: “The City acknowledges the comment as a statement. No further response is required.”
Reply: An analysis resulting in an impact prediction is not merely a statement in the context of comments on an DEIR.

Response 206-322: “The City acknowledges the comment as a statement. No further response is required.”
Reply: I commented on a major flaw of the DEIR’s analysis of cumulative impacts. My comment was not a mere statement.

Thank you for your attention,
______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.

REFERENCES CITED
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. Sacramento, California.

Davy, C. M., A. T. Ford, and K. C. Fraser. 2017. Aeroconservation for the fragmented skies. Conservation Letters 10(6): 773–780.

Diehl, R. H., A. C. Peterson, R. T. Bolus, and D. Johnson. 2017. Extending the habitat concept to the airspace. USGS Staff -- Published Research. 1129. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/1129
Hall, L. S., P. R. Krausman, and M. L. Morrison. 1997. “The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:173-82. 536
21 Kunz, T. H., S. A. Gauthreaux Jr., N. I. Hristov, J. W. Horn, G. Jones, E. K. V. Kalko, R.

P. Larkin, G. F. McCracken, S. M. Swartz, R. B. Srygley, R. Dudley, J. K. Westbrook, and M. Wikelski. 2008. Aeroecology: probing and modelling the aerosphere. Integrative and Comparative Biology 48:1-11. doi:10.1093/icb/icn037 Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California.

National Research Council. 1986. Ecological knowledge and environmental problemsolving: concepts and case studies. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Rincon. 2018. Biological Resources Inventory, 34-acre project site, City of Oxnard, Ventura County, California. Report to Giles Pettifor, Environmental Manager, Oxnard Harbor District, Port Hueneme, California.

Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California.

Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Habitat models based on numerical comparisons. Pages 83-95 in Predicting species occurrences: Issues of scale and accuracy, J. M. Scott, P. J.

Heglund, M. Morrison, M. Raphael, J. Haufler, and B. Wall, editors. Island Press, Covello, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216 Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, J. Mount, and R. C. E. Culver. 2013. Nesting Burrowing Owl Abundance in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Wildlife Society Bulletin: 37:787-795.
537

POLICY PERSPECTIVE
Aeroconservation for the Fragmented Skies
Christina M. Davy1, Adam T. Ford2, & Kevin C. Fraser3
1 Trent University, Peterborough, ON, Canada, K9J 7B8
2 University of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus, 3333 University Way, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada, V1V 1V7 3 Department of Biological Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada, R3T 2N2 Keywords
Airspace; aerial habitat; habitat connectivity;
habitat classification scheme; habitat
fragmentation; IUCN; status assessment.

Correspondence
Christina Davy, Wildlife Research and
Monitoring Section, Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources and Forestry, Trent University,
Peterborough, Canada, K9J 7B8.

Tel: +1-705-755-5220; fax: n/a.

E-mail: [email protected]
Received
17 June 2016
Accepted
25 January 2017
Editor
David Lindenmayer
doi: 10.1111/conl.12347
Abstract
From birds to bacteria, airborne organisms face substantial anthropogenic impacts. The airspace provides essential habitat for thousands of species, some of which spend most of their lives airborne. Despite recent calls to protect the airspace, it continues to be treated as secondary to terrestrial and aquatic habitats in policy and research. Aeroconservation integrates recent advances in aeroecology and habitat connectivity, and recognizes aerial habitats and threats as analogous to their terrestrial and aquatic counterparts. Aerial habitats are poorly represented in the ecological literature and are largely absent from environmental policy, hindering protection of aerial biodiversity. Here, we provide a framework for defining aerial habitats to advance the study of aeroconservation and the protection of the airspace in environmental policy. We illustrate how current habitat definitions explicitly disadvantage aerial species relative to non-aerial species, and review key areas of conflict between aeroconservation and human use of the airspace. Finally, we identify opportunities for research to fill critical knowledge gaps for aeroconservation. For example, aerial habitat fragmentation may impact biodiversity and ecosystem function similarly to terrestrial habitat fragmentation, and we illustrate how this can be investigated by extending existing methods and paradigms from terrestrial conservation biology up into the airspace.

Introduction
The airspace provides essential habitat for an enormous array of biodiversity including microorganisms, winddispersed seeds, fungal spores, arthropods, bats, and birds (Kunz et al. 2008; Womack et al. 2010; Diehl 2013). Migratory aerial species rely on a clear path through the airspace to move between summer and winter habitats,
while aerial insectivores rely on the airspace to forage. Insects such as the Ephemeroptera (mayflies) rely on aerial swarms for mating (Brodskiy 1973), and the Alpine Swift (Tachymarptis melba) can remain airborne for months, foraging, sleeping, and mating in the air (Liechti et al. 2013).

At higher altitudes, aerial microorganisms exhibit strategies, such as increased UV resistance, which allow them to survive in the high reaches of the atmosphere (Yang
et al. 2008; Womack et al. 2010).

Aerial species represent a substantial portion of global biodiversity. Twenty-eight percent of vertebrate species assessed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) fly or glide, and rely to some extent
on the airspace (Figure 1). This proportion may be much higher for insects, spiders, and plants that produce winddispersed seeds.

Unfortunately, a growing number of anthropogenic
threats are intruding into the “crowded airspace” (Lambertucci et al. 2015; Table 1). Collisions with human infrastructure and aircraft result in billions of wildlife deaths each year (Longcore & Rich 2004; Womack et al.
2010; Diehl 2013; Baxter-Gilbert et al. 2015; Lambertucci et al. 2015; Arnett et al. 2016; Figure 2). Moving vehicles kill billions of flying insects (Baxter-Gilbert et al. 2015), wind turbines kill millions of bats (Arnett et al. 2016), and aircrafts kill thousands of birds (Dolbeer et al. 2015).

In Canada alone, an estimated 44.6 million adult birds
die each year from collisions with buildings, wind farms, communication towers, and other sources of aerial fragmentation (Calvert et al. 2013). Global use of unmanned Conservation Letters, November/December 2017, 10(6), 773–780 Copyright and Photocopying: C 2017 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 773
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
538
Conservation of aerial habitats and species C. M. Davy et al.

Figure 1 Despite many threatened species relying on aerial habitats, assessments of species’ conservation status and research on habitats and habitat conservation focus heavily on terrestrial and aquatic habitats. (A) Proportion of vertebrates assessed and listed as threatened by the IUCN that use aerial and nonaerial habitats. (B) Disproportionate representation of select habitat types in the scientific literature, based on Google Scholar search results (September 6, 2015). Bars show the number of hits that reference each search term; black subsections represent the results that also reference "conservation.” (C) “Aerial habitat” actually refers to habitats other than the airspace in most of the 248 unique documents referencing this term.
aerial vehicles (UAVs) by law enforcement, researchers, hobbyists, and military organizations is increasing, and commercial UAV-based delivery services are in development in some countries. Substantial overlap between the flight altitudes of UAVs and aerial species (Figure 2) suggests that growing UAV activity will increase UAVwildlife collisions. The three-dimensional nature of aerial habitats creates the illusion that flying, soaring, or gliding organisms can simply circumnavigate anthropogenic structures, aircraft or UAVs. Yet, empirical data clearly demonstrate that this is often not the case.

Here, we identify a critical gap in conservation ecology and policy that sits at the intersection of four key, current topics ( Figure 3). The growing field of aeroecology
(Kunz et al. 2008) is revealing how flying animals use
the airspace. The airspace was recently defined as habitat (Diehl 2013), complete with heterogeneous resource
distribution and the potential for anthropogenic activities to create impacts analogous to those documented in
fragmented terrestrial habitats. Alongside compelling
evidence that terrestrial habitat fragmentation significantly reduces biodiversity (Haddad et al. 2015), it has become increasingly clear that anthropogenic structures and transportation are a major source of mortality for
flying wildlife (Calvert et al. 2013; Lambertucci et al. 2015; Arnett et al. 2016). The intersection of these policy issues and research areas represent a major conservation gap: targeted conservation of aerial species and habitats.

We propose a new field, “aeroconservation,” to integrate these important research areas and develop effective
conservation tools for aerial habitats and biodiversity.

The skies are not simply “crowded” by human activities (Lambertucci et al. 2015) – they represent critical but undefined habitats that have little policy support. Longdistance migrants must fly a gauntlet of threats (Movie S1) through habitats that are not effectively protected, in part because these habitats are not clearly defined.

Substantial effort has been made to conserve wildlife
corridors and mitigate the barrier effects of infrastructure in terrestrial habitats. It is time to consider similar mitigations for aerial habitats. To meet the challenge of aeroconservation, we propose: (1) defining aerial habitat types clearly in international policy, (2) articulating responsibility for aerial habitat conservation in environmental legislation, and (3) targeting conservation research to support the urgent needs of threatened aerial species and habitats.

Explicit definitions for aerial habitat
Habitat definitions vary among jurisdictions, but are often based on those used by the IUCN. We therefore use the IUCN’s current Habitat Classification scheme here,
to illustrate our concern. The IUCN scheme recognizes
only terrestrial and aquatic habitats (Figure 1B). A flexible third category, “Other,” could be applied to aerial habitat but typically is not (e.g., 0.2% of 1,150 IUCN assessments of bat species list “Other” habitat, but do not refer to airspace). The IUCN assessment of the Globe
Skimmer dragonfly (Pantala flavescens) considers 14 terrestrial habitat types, but does not list the airspace used for dispersal or intercontinental migrations (Hobson et al. 2012; IUCN 2015).Thus, status assessments based on the
current habitat classifications consider only terrestrial and aquatic habitat types, incorrectly implying that aerial species rely only on their nonaerial habitats such as migratory stopovers, roosts, or nests for survival.

In contrast, many assessments of nonaerial species
include habitats connecting nonbreeding and breeding
774 Conservation Letters, November/December 2017, 10(6), 773–780 Copyright and Photocopying: C 2017 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
539
C. M. Davy et al. Conservation of aerial habitats and species Table 1 Aerial threat typology and potential effects associated with anthropogenic impacts on aerial habitats Threat type Examples Potential effects
Direct collisions With stationary
structures
Buildings, transmission lines,
solar panels, fences
Increased mortality; injury
With moving
structures
Cars, trains, ships, moving
turbine blades, aircraft
Increased mortality; injury
Range expansions of microorganisms or seeds dispersed by aircraft.

Physical barriers From stationary or
moving
structures
Buildings, vehicles, fences,
aircraft
Physical fragmentation of aerial habitat
Effective habitat fragmentation through barrier effects (e.g., through individuals avoiding high-traffic aerial routes) Modified airflow affecting dispersal of microorganisms, wind-dispersed seeds, ballooning spiders, etc.

Pollution Chemical pollution Emissions from manufacturing or mining operations
Increased UV radiation through ozone depletion, particularly for high-altitude microorganisms
Smoke billows from wildfires Reduced visibility from particulate suspended in the air, leading to increased collision risk and disrupting celestial navigation
Emissions from transportation Physiological impacts on organisms exposed to toxic doses.

Heat pollution Solar flare at solar power
installations
Increased mortality
Urban heat islands Modified local climate
Heat plumes from cooling
towers or wildfires
Modified airflow patterns, affecting dispersal of
microorganisms, wind-dispersed seeds, ballooning
spiders, etc.

Light pollution Airport and urban lighting Disrupted celestial navigation through reduction of visible starlight or through attraction toward artificial light Increased risk of collisions (i.e., for night-flying insects).

Noise pollution Vehicle and aircraft traffic,
manufacturing activities,
natural resource extraction
Disrupted acoustic communication (insects, birds, bats) Disrupted acoustic navigation (e.g., echolocating bats). areas (IUCN 2015). As an illustration, the IUCN assessments of the European and American Eel (Anguilla anguilla; A. rostrata) both include habitat types used for “passage” from breeding to nonbreeding areas, analogous to the airspace used by migrating or dispersing aerial
species. This approach acknowledges that boundaries
among habitat types are ecologically permeable, and that most species rely on the protection of multiple habitat types for survival (Burke & Gibbons 1995; IUCN 2015).

The absence of aerial habitat recognition extends to international policy. For example, the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Wild Species of Animals defines a species’ range as “the areas of land or water that a migratory species inhabits, stays in temporarily, crosses or overflies at any time on its normal migration route.” Aerial habitats are excluded despite an explicit acknowledgment in the text that some species fly. Thus billions of birds, bats, insects, and other organisms rely on undefined and therefore unprotected aerial habitat to complete critical life processes.

To facilitate the incorporation of aerial habitats into habitat classification schemes, we propose habitat subdivisions for the troposphere (0–15 km altitude; Table S1, Figure 2). Adopting these habitat definitions would allow more complete assessments of the habitat requirements
of aerial organisms. We have based the proposed scheme
loosely on the existing definitions of marine pelagic habitats, which are also three-dimensional and therefore challenging to define. Pelagic habitats are defined in part by the amount of light penetrating from the surface, and whether it is sufficient for photosynthesis. For aerial habitats, we defined biologically meaningful categories based on temperature and oxygen levels in the airspace.

Basoaerial habitat includes the airspace extending from the top of the adjacent terrestrial habitat, upward to an absolute altitude of 1 km, at which the temperature has dropped 10°C below that of the air directly above the
adjacent terrestrial or aquatic habitat. Thus, movement within the basoaerial layer requires relatively little physiological adjustment to tolerate the increased altitude. The basoaerial layer will be thicker above grasslands or water bodies, and thinner above high forest canopies. Threats to organisms in basoaerial habitat include collisions with vehicles, aircraft, wind turbines and buildings (BaxterGilbert et al. 2015; Dai et al. 2015; Lambertucci et al. 2015), and light pollution (Longcore & Rich 2004). Mesoaerial
Conservation Letters, November/December 2017, 10(6), 773–780 Copyright and Photocopying: C 2017 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 775
540
Conservation of aerial habitats and species C. M. Davy et al.

Figure 2 Aerial species fly a gauntlet of threats as they navigate fragmented aerial habitats. Gray bars in the left panel show flight altitudes reached by selected aerial species in the basoaerial; altitudes of selected threats in each aerial habitat type are shown in red. The indicated (dashed line) altitude of the tropopause (upper limit of the troposphere) is approximate because the height of the troposphere varies according to latitude. The troposphere encapsulates the basoaerial, mesoaerial, and epiaerial layers (blue shading).

Figure 3 Aeroconservation integrates four key research areas related to habitat and species conservation, illustrated in this schematic by a major contribution from each area.
habitat (1–8 km altitude) is characterized by steadily decreasing temperatures (-10°C/km) and decreasing oxygen levels as altitude increases. At approximately 8 km in altitude, there is insufficient oxygen for typical human survival (the so-called “death zone” described by high-altitude climbers; Krakauer 1997). Birds flying near or above the upper limits of mesoaerial habitats exhibit physiological adaptations to these extreme conditions (Scott 2011). Anthropogenic threats in mesoaerial habitats (1–8 km) include light pollution and collisions with aircraft. Finally, temperatures in epiaerial habitat plunge toward -56°C at the tropopause. The altitude of
the tropopause, which defines the upper limit of epiaerial habitat, varies with latitude. Thus, epiaerial habitat begins at 8 m in altitude and rises to between 9 and approximately 17 km in altitude, depending on latitude. Threats to species in epiaerial habitat include cruising aircraft and light pollution. Epiaerial microorganisms exhibit adaptations to high altitude (Yang et al. 2008), but their biology and diversity are not well understood (Womack et al. 2010).

Crowded skies: conflicting priorities
in management of aerial habitats
Aerial species cross a range of altitudes (Scott 2011;
Figure 2) and jurisdictional boundaries. Thus, aeroconservation will require interagency coordination within a jurisdiction, and transboundary cooperation among jurisdictions. This poses a challenge because ensuring human safety and economic growth can conflict with protection of aerial biodiversity. For example, the International Civil Aviation Organization encourages elimination of birds
and bird habitat from airports because these species pose a threat to aircraft safety (Kelly & Allan 2006). The U.S.

Federal Aviation Administration further recommends
exclusion of habitat for “hazardous wildlife” within an 8 km radius of each airport’s air operations area. With over 13,000 airports in the United States, this area of exclusion not only impacts more than 2.6 million km2 of terrestrial habitat – twice the total of all protected areas in the United States – but also more than 2.6 million km3 of basoaerial habitat through which planes ascend and
descend, creating a network of high-risk areas for aerial organisms.
776 Conservation Letters, November/December 2017, 10(6), 773–780 Copyright and Photocopying: C 2017 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
541
C. M. Davy et al. Conservation of aerial habitats and species We also face novel conflicts between our desire to
protect biodiversity in the Anthropocene, our need to
mitigate climate change (in part to protect biodiversity), and our current, insatiable demand for energy.

Renewable energy technologies developed to provide
sustainable alternatives to fossil fuels can have substantial impacts on basoaerial habitats. Wind energy installations increase mortality of local and migratory birds and bats, and solar energy installations that include solar power towers can incinerate flying birds or arthropods that cross the “solar flux” (Dai et al. 2015; Walston et al. 2016).

Although the impact of each individual installation
on threatened aerial species is likely negligible, the
long-term, cumulative impacts of the growing number
of installations may not be. Thus, decreasing the impacts of renewable energy on aerial wildlife represents a major challenge in aeroconservation. An associated challenge
is the conversion of estimated mortality rates from these threats to projected, population-level impacts. Currently, such impacts are unclear because mortality estimates are highly variable among studies (Calvert et al. 2013; Arnett et al. 2016) and baseline data on population trends are unavailable for many aerial taxa (Baxter-Gilbert et al. 2015; Arnett et al. 2016).

The final ecological frontier?
The airspace also remains poorly represented in ecological and conservation research, despite recent interest in aeroecology (Kunz et al. 2008; Womack et al. 2010). To
illustrate this on a broad scale, we conducted a Google Scholar search for the terms “aquatic habitat” and “terrestrial habitat,” which returned 40,000 and 13,000 records, respectively. In contrast, our search for the term “aerial habitat” returned 171 records, and only 31% of
these used the term to describe habitat for aerial taxa (Figure 1C). We are not suggesting that there is no interest in the airspace among ecologists, or that it has never been considered. Instead, we hope to catalyze progress
in aeroconservation by highlighting: (1) a critical, persistent gap in conservation biology and (2) an opportunity to extend paradigms and research methods from terrestrial ecology upward into the airspace. We explore one example below: the fragmentation of aerial habitat.

Fragmented skies – applying paradigms
from terrestrial ecology to the airspace
Diehl (2013) proposed that aerial habitat could also be “fragmented,” but the implications of aerial habitat fragmentation have not yet been studied. Fahrig (2003) defined habitat fragmentation as the “breaking apart of habitat,” a process that can cause chronic changes in
species diversity and ecosystem function (Andren 1994;
Lindenmayr & Fischer 2013; Haddad et al. 2015). Describing the airspace as “fragmented” may be counterintuitive to ecologists accustomed to visualizing this process in two-dimensional, terrestrial landscapes. Nevertheless, we propose that anthropogenic intrusions into aerial habitats can create barriers to movement, functionally dividing basoaerial habitat into isolated fragments.

The multidimensionality of the airspace can complicate our perception of its connectivity. In discussing aerial habitat fragmentation and aeroconservation with colleagues, we have repeatedly heard the argument that flying wildlife can surely avoid obstacles as large as buildings. For organisms such as ballooning spiders or aerial microorganisms that do not control their aerial trajectory (Womack et al. 2010; Blandenier et al. 2014), obstacle avoidance may simply be impossible. However, we acknowledge that many obstacles encountered by aerial
species appear easily surmountable from our perspective.

For example, transmission lines are not that high – surely birds can simply fly over them? In many cases they do,
but expecting aerial species to consistently increase flight altitude in response to habitat fragmentation discounts the constraints of the altitudinal niches to which they are adapted (Scott 2011, Finn et al. 2012), and may raise the potential energetic and fitness costs of flight. Exposure to aerial predators and energetic costs of flight may increase with flight altitude, especially for species that are not adapted to high-altitude gliding (Niskanen et al. 2014), while increased altitude also increases the length of the total flight path. The challenges of obstacle avoidance in the airspace are clearly illustrated by the millions of aerial vertebrates and arthropods that collide with anthropogenic features every year.

As a thought experiment, imagine a population of
passerine birds (or damselflies, or hemipterans). Picture a species that can meet its habitat requirements in an
urban area, and that typically flies within a few meters of the ground to reduce energetic costs of flight (Finn et al. 2012), or to avoid predation. In urban areas, buildings that are taller than the preferred flight height of this species create functional barriers, analogous to those documented in terrestrial species that avoid roads that they are physically able to cross (D’Amico et al. 2016). Our hypothetical aerial species can fly around buildings where gaps exist, but this increases the distance of their journey from one point to another, potentially increasing predation risk and energetic costs, and further decreases the functional connectivity of their habitat.

Aeroconservation can benefit not only from the
paradigms of terrestrial ecology, but also the tools. For example, connectivity analyses could identify critical
Conservation Letters, November/December 2017, 10(6), 773–780 Copyright and Photocopying: C 2017 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 777
542
Conservation of aerial habitats and species C. M. Davy et al.

Figure 4 Conservation of aerial species requires protection of aerial habitats. There is growing awareness of the need to conserve airspace for wildlife, illustrated here by a sign in Ontario, Canada, that was posted in response to a proposed airport (A). Yet, conservation policy lags behind public awareness, limiting effective management of aerial habitats (Table 1). Tools used to quantify fragmentation of terrestrial habitats can also be used for the conservation of airspace, such as (B) linkage maps (Koen et al. 2014). Here, we quantify aerial movement corridors that have the lowest cumulative exposure to aerial habitat fragmentation in the Mississippi flyway. Most points in the eastern United States are <30 km from sources of fragmentation (B). As a result, basoaerial habitat connectivity is low, shown in (C). We define fragmentation as proximity to airports, cities, highways, wind farms, or communication towers, although we acknowledge that further sources of aerial habitat fragmentation also exist. Termini for the corridors are the Yucatan Peninsula (Mexico), Hudson’s Bay (Canada), and Wood Buffalo National Park (Canada), approximating avian migration through the United States and Canada. See online supplemental material for further details of this analysis. corridors for aerial habitat connectivity, an approach we illustrate in Figure 4. Such corridors could be overlaid with habitats essential to terrestrial or aquatic habitat connectivity, allowing identification of “connectivity
hotspots.”
In addition to anthropogenic impacts on aerial vertebrates and arthropods, potential human impacts on microorganisms adapted to aerial habitats provide rich research opportunities (Yang et al. 2008; Womack et al. 2010). Selective pressures on aerial microorganisms are likely altered by climate change, pollution, and human
activity. Shifting temperature or precipitation patterns could affect survival of aerial microorganisms, potentially altering community structure. Altered wind patterns and aircraft movements could influence microorganism dispersal, modifying the biogeography of aerial microorganisms with unpredictable effects. Although we consider it unlikely that the facilitated movement of aerial microorganisms would cause a major ecological catastrophe, the rapid increase in emerging infectious diseases (Jones et al. 2008) serves as an illustration that invasive microorganisms can have unpredictable effects on na¨ıve ecosystems.

Reaching for the sky
Effective aeroconservation requires effective solutions and tools for the conservation of aerial habitats and biodiversity. Substantial efforts are already underway, supported both by the development of new technologies, and the implementation of common-sense solutions. These
include installation of new types of window glass that are less likely to cause bird collisions, and mandated temporary shut-downs of wind energy installations during peak bird or bat migration periods. However, these efforts are largely limited to local mitigation of collision-based impacts on particular taxa. The recognition of aerial habitats now needs to be translated into policy, qualifying the habitats themselves for legal protection where necessary.

Flying aircraft or UAVs at low altitudes is often prohibited over some protected areas, typically to protect terrestrial species from disturbance (e.g., Otto et al. 2003).

Such rules could be extended to protect aggregations of aerial species, and dynamic aerial reserves have been
proposed to protect aerial foraging or migratory habitat (Diehl 2013; Lambertucci et al. 2015). While we echo
778 Conservation Letters, November/December 2017, 10(6), 773–780 Copyright and Photocopying: C 2017 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
543
C. M. Davy et al. Conservation of aerial habitats and species the call for protected aerial reserves, we argue that it is premature until aerial habitats are acknowledged in policy and legislation, and until the extent of legislative influence into aerial habitat is clarified (Lambertucci et al. 2015; Linchant et al. 2015). In many countries, legislation such as the U.S.A. Clean Air Act addresses the abiotic components of air quality. These types of legislation could serve as a platform to provide legal protection to aerial biodiversity. Similarly, legislation governing terrestrial and aquatic conservation (e.g., the Canadian Species at Risk Act) could be modified to include aerial habitats where required for species protection.

We acknowledge that there are substantial logistical
challenges associated with aeroconservation, and we
are hopeful that new technologies will emerge to meet
them. For example, radar can detect mass migrations or
significant ephemeral concentrations of prey for aerial insectivores (Farnsworth et al. 2015), enabling habitat protection when necessary and allowing human use
at other times (dynamic aerial reserves). Stable isotope analyses and the increasing miniaturization of biologging tools allow identification of migratory and dispersal pathways for an increasing diversity of airborne organisms (Fraser et al. 2010; Stanley et al. 2015).

Building effective strategies for aeroconservation will not be simple or fast. It will require transboundary
partnerships and creative collaborations among legislators and policy makers, conservation practitioners, researchers, and the public. We invite you to join us in lifting our conservation tools up off the ground, and developing effective protection for the thousands of species with which we share the skies.

Acknowledgments
This collaboration developed through the Liber Ero
Fellowship Program. We thank P. Beier, B. Fenton,
T. Flockhart, S. Otto, B. Stutchbury, and C. Willis for helpful comments and discussion. We also thank two
anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

Supporting Information
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the
online version of this article at the publisher’s web site:

The following supplementary material is available for
this article:

Movie S1. This material is available as part of the
online article from: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/
doi/full/10.1111/j.1755–263X.2008.00002.x.

References
Andren, H. (1994). Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos, 71, 355-366.

Arnett, E.B., Baerwald, E.F., Mathews, F., et al. (2016).

Impacts of Wind Energy Development on Bats: A Global
Perspective. In: Bats in the Anthropocene: Conservation of bats in a changing world (eds. Voigt, C.C. & Kingston, T.) Springer International Publishing, pp., 295-323.

Baxter-Gilbert, J.H., Riley, J.L., Neufeld, C.J.H., Litzgus, J.D. & Lesbarreres, D. (2015). Road mortality potentially `
responsible for billions of pollinating insect deaths
annually. J. Insect Conserv., 19, 1029-1035.

Blandenier, G., Bruggisser, O.T. & Bersier, L.F. (2014). Do spiders respond to global change? A study on the
phenology of ballooning spiders in Switzerland. Ecoscience, 21, 79-95.

Brodskiy, A.K. (1973). The swarming behavior of mayflies (Ephemeroptera). Entomol. Rev., 52, 33-39 .

Burke, V.J. & Gibbons, J.W. (1995). Terrestrial buffer zones and wetland conservation: a case study of freshwater
turtles in a Carolina Bay. Conserv. Biol., 9, 1365-1369.

Calvert, A.M., Bishop, C.A, Elliot, R.D., et al. (2013). A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada
[Synthese des sources de mortalit ` e aviaire d’ origine ´ anthropique au Canada]. Avian Conserv. Ecol., 8, 11.
http://www.ace-eco.org/vol8/iss2/art11/
D’Amico, M., Periquet, S., Rom ´ an, J. & Revilla, E. (2016). ´ Road avoidance responses determine the impact of
heterogeneous road networks at a regional scale. J. Appl.

Ecol., 53, 181-190.

Dai, K., Bergot, A., Liang, C., Xiang, W.-N. & Huang, Z. (2015). Environmental issues associated with wind
energy–a review. Renew. Energy, 75, 911-921.

Diehl, R.H. (2013). The airspace is habitat. Trends Ecol. Evol., 28, 377-379.

Dolbeer, R.A., Wright, S.E., Weller, J., Anderson, A.L. & Beiger, M.J. (2015). Wildlife strikes to civil aircraft in the United States, 1990-2015. U.S. Dep. Transp. Fed. Aviat. Adm.

Off. Airpt. Saf. Stand., Serial Rep, 120 pp.

Fahrig, L. (2003). Effects of habitat fragmentation on
biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 34, 487-515.

Farnsworth, A., Van Doren, B.M., Hochachka, W.M., et al. (2015). A characterization of autumn nocturnal migration detected by weather surveillance radars in the northeastern US. Ecol. Appl., 26, 752-770.

Finn, J., Carlsson, J., Kelly, T. & Davenport, J. (2012).

Avoidance of headwinds or exploitation of ground
effect—why do birds fly low? J. Field Ornithol., 83, 192-202.

Fraser, K.C., McKinnon, E.A. & Diamond, A.W. (2010).

Migration, diet, or molt? Interpreting stable-hydrogen
isotope values in neotropical bats. Biotropica, 42, 512-517.

Conservation Letters, November/December 2017, 10(6), 773–780 Copyright and Photocopying: C 2017 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 779
544
Conservation of aerial habitats and species C. M. Davy et al.

Haddad, N.M., Brudvig, L.A., Clobert, J., et al. (2015). Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems.

Sci. Adv., 1, e1500052-e1500052.

Hobson, K.A., Anderson, R.C., Soto, D.X. & Wassenaar, L.I. (2012). Isotopic evidence that dragonflies (Pantala
flavescens) migrating through the Maldives come from the northern Indian Subcontinent. Plos ONE, 7, 9-12.

IUCN. (2015). The IUCN red list of threatened species.

Version 2015-4. http://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed
January 10, 2016.

Jones, K.E., Patel, N.G., Levy, M.A., et al. (2008). Global trends in emerging infectious diseases. Nature, 451,
990-993.

Kelly, T. & Allan, J. (2006). Ecological effects of aviation. In:

The Ecology of Transportation: Managing Mobility for the Environment (ed. Davenport, J. & Davenport, J.L.).

Springer, Springer, pp. 5-24.

Koen, E.L., Bowman, J., Sadowski, C. & Walpole, A.A.
(2014). Landscape connectivity for wildlife: development and validation of multispecies linkage maps. Methods Ecol.

Evol., 5, 626-633.

Krakauer, J. (1997). Into thin air. Doubleday Anchor, New York.

Kunz, T.H., Gauthreaux, S.A., Hristov, N.I., et al. (2008).

Aeroecology: probing and modeling the aerosphere. Integr.

Comp. Biol., 48, 1-11.

Lambertucci, S.A., Shepard, E.L. & Wilson, R.P. (2015).

Human-wildlife conflicts in a crowded airspace. Science, 348, 502-504.

Liechti, F., Witvliet, W., Weber, R. & Bachler, E. (2013). First ¨ evidence of a 200-day non-stop flight in a bird. Nat.

Commun., 4, 1-7.

Linchant, J., Lisein, J., Semeki, J., Lejeune, P. & Vermeulen, C. (2015). Are unmanned aircraft systems (UASs) the
future of wildlife monitoring? A review of
accomplishments and challenges. Mamm. Rev., 45, 239-252.

Lindenmayr, D.B. & Fischer, J. (2013). Habitat fragmentation and landscape change: an ecological and conservation synthesis.

Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Longcore, T. & Rich, C. (2004). Ecological light pollution.

Front. Ecol. Environ., 2, 191-198.

Niskanen, A.K., Kennedy, L.J., Ruokonen, M., et al. (2014).

Balancing selection and heterozygote advantage in major histocompatibility complex loci of the bottlenecked Finnish wolf population. Mol. Ecol., 23, 875-889.

Otto, R.D., Simon, N.P.P., Couturier, S. & Schmelzer, I. (2003). Evaluation of satellite collar sample size
requirements for mitigation of low-level military jet
disturbance of the George River caribou herd. Rangifer, 23, 23-27.

Scott, G.R. (2011). Elevated performance: the unique
physiology of birds that fly at high altitudes. J. Exp. Biol., 214, 2455-2462.

Stanley, C.Q., McKinnon, E.A., Fraser, K.C., et al. (2015).

Connectivity of wood thrush breeding, wintering, and
migration sites based on range-wide tracking. Conserv. Biol., 29, 164-174.

Walston, L.J., Rollins, K.E., LaGory, K.E., Smith, K.P. & Meyers, S.A. (2016). A preliminary assessment of avian
mortality at utility-scale solar energy facilities in the United States. Renew. Energy, 92, 405-414.

Womack, A.M., Bohannan, B.J.M. & Green, J.L. (2010).

Biodiversity and biogeography of the atmosphere. Philos.

Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci., 365, 3645-3653.

Yang, Y., Itahashi, S., Yokobori, S. & Yamagishi, A. (2008).

UV-resistant bacteria isolated from upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. Biol. Sci. Sp., 22, 18-25.
780 Conservation Letters, November/December 2017, 10(6), 773–780 Copyright and Photocopying: C 2017 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
545
University of Nebraska - Lincoln
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln
USGS Staff -- Published Research US Geological Survey
2017
Extending the Habitat Concept to the Airspace
Robert H. Diehl
Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, [email protected] Anna C. Peterson
University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, [email protected]
Rachel T. Bolus
Southern Utah University, [email protected]
Douglas Johnson
Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub Part of the Geology Commons, Oceanography and Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology Commons, Other Earth Sciences Commons, and the Other Environmental Sciences Commons Diehl, Robert H.; Peterson, Anna C.; Bolus, Rachel T.; and Johnson, Douglas, "Extending the Habitat Concept to the Airspace" (2017). USGS Staff -- Published Research. 1129. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/1129
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the US Geological Survey at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in USGS Staff -- Published Research by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 546
Extending the Habitat Concept
to the Airspace 3
Robert H. Diehl, Anna C. Peterson, Rachel T. Bolus,
and Douglas H. Johnson
Abstract
Habitat is one of the most familiar and fundamental concepts in the fields of ecology, animal behavior, and wildlife conservation and management. Humans interact with habitats through their senses and experiences and education to such a degree that their perceptions of habitat have become second nature. For this reason, it may be difficult at first to accept the airspace as habitat, an area that is invisible, untouchable, highly dynamic, and its occupants difficult to see. Nonetheless, the habitat concept, by definition and in practice, applies readily to the airspace. Some ecological and behavioral processes including habitat selection, foraging, and reproduction are operational in the airspace, while others, particularly those mediated by resource limitation such as territoriality, are likely uncommon if present at all. The behaviors of flying animals increasingly expose them to anthropogenic hazards as development of the airspace accelerates. This exacerbates the need to identify approaches for managing these human–wildlife conflicts in aerial habitats, especially where human safety or at-risk populations are concerned. The habitat concept has proven useful in shaping environmental law and policy to help R.H. Diehl (*)
US Geological Survey, Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, Bozeman, MT, USA e-mail: [email protected]
A.C. Peterson
Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN, US
e-mail: [email protected]
R.T. Bolus
Department of Biology, Southern Utah University, Cedar City, UT, USA e-mail: [email protected]
D.H. Johnson
US Geological Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND, USA e-mail: [email protected]
# Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2017 P.B. Chilson et al. (eds.), Aeroecology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68576-2_3
47 547
mitigate these conflicts. It remains to be seen whether current law can bend to include a more expansive concept of habitat that includes the airspace. 1 What Is Habitat?
Consider an organism moving through a vast and apparently featureless yet dynamic fluid medium. Its behavioral and physical phenotype is designed for life in this medium, and its survival contingent upon its ability to seek out favorable currents in which to move about, find food, sleep, and avoid predators. This might describe the rudimentary natural history of countless pelagic fish species and we would not hesitate to call the open water they occupy a habitat. This might also describe the natural history of numerous bird species and the airspaces they occupy, yet most would claim a bird in flight is not in habitat. The notion of habitat is firmly linked to terrestrial or aquatic places, yet nothing about the ecology of habitats excludes the airspace which shares many ecological parallels with its terrestrial and aquatic counterparts.

Ecologists have struggled to define habitat. Linnæus (1754), his mind on plants, informally referred to “the native places” (where one finds a given species of plant) as “station,” his nascent term for habitat. This concept was developed with principles that apply to sessile plants and which have continued to influence scientific understanding of habitat; however, highly mobile organisms defy our attempts to discretely categorize their habitats by plant communities (e.g., forest, grassland) and/or geological formations (e.g., river, alpine). Linnæus’ general perception of habitat remains widely accepted today, even as a persistent dissatisfaction surrounds a precise definition. Odum’s (1959) definition of habitat as “the place an organism lives, or where one would go to find it” is perhaps the most familiar to ecologists. A few years later, perhaps dissatisfied with this and other definitions, Elton (1966) stated that, “definition of habitat, or rather lack of it, is one of the chief blind spots in zoology,” and efforts to define it continue. Many of the more generalizable definitions of habitat offer some reference to occupancy or resources that promote occupancy (e.g., Hall et al. 1997; Dennis et al. 2003, 2006; Morrison et al. 2006). Of these, Morrison et al.’s is among the more precise and generalizable, calling habitat an “area with a combination of resources and environmental conditions that promotes occupancy by individuals of a given species that allows individuals to survive and reproduce.” More context specific definitions usually involve additional criteria and represent special cases and are therefore less broadly applicable to the life history of organisms as a whole (e.g., by requiring the presence of vegetation). The airspace satisfies criteria set forth in these and other broadly defined conceptions of habitat in that it contains resources that promote occupancy. These include food, mates, opportunities to avoid predators, and a low friction, relatively uncluttered medium enabling efficient travel. The idea that the airspace should be considered habitat (Diehl 2013) is gaining acceptance and is a fundamental tenet of the emerging field of aeroecology (Kunz et al. 2008). 48 R.H. Diehl et al.
548
It was unclear how long airborne resources could sustain life during flight, particularly of a vertebrate, until Alpine and Common Swifts (Tachymarptis melba and Apus apus) were documented remaining aloft for several months without landing (Liechti et al. 2013; Hedenstr€om et al. 2016). The airspace alone provided all the resources required to sustain the swift’s biology, including food and sleep.

Much as a terrestrial amphibian uses the water only to breed, these swifts appear to need land only to support their nests and eggs. (The word “amphibious” means “leading a double life” in Greek, and had early taxonomists not applied this word exclusively to animals that exist between the land and water, we might also label swifts as “amphibious.”) In addition, recent research shows that the microscopic biological flotsam of the air is composed not only of inert cells and bits of feathers but also of life: pollen, bacteria, fungi, and protists (Depre´s et al. 2012). The airspace is teeming with microbial communities that spend generations aloft before settling back to the surface after metabolizing, undergoing selection, and reproducing (Womack et al. 2010). Such phenomena challenge biologists to accept that the airspace is habitat. The alternative—that such organisms are sustained through large proportions of their lives outside habitat—suggests that the current habitat model be rejected altogether, although it is unclear what might replace it (Dennis et al. 2003). A revised understanding of habitat that includes the airspace offers a new context to consider the habitat concept. Relative to its terrestrial and aquatic counterparts, the airspace is highly dynamic yet presumably lacking in much of the structure and organizational complexity that comes with higher plant and animal abundances, species diversity, and physical substrates typically associated with habitat.

Despite a strong ecological basis that the airspace should be considered habitat, the notion remains counterintuitive and references to the airspace as habitat are vague where they exist at all (e.g., Cadenasso et al. 2003). Through formal education and personal experience, we learn about habitat strictly in terms of land and water. Indeed, among all vertebrates and macroinvertebrates, humans and a relative handful of other species are actually unusual for their inability to fly. Our perceptions shape how we understand and apply the habitat concept in ways that may have consequences for wildlife conservation and management and the education of future generations.

Early hunter-gatherer societies likely cultivated a deep understanding of the natural history of plants and animals, so the awareness of habitat (in the sense that certain resources can be found in certain places at certain times) predates scientific recognition and definition by millions of years. The knowledge of when and where to gain access to resources was critical to survival throughout evolutionary history and therefore linked to resources that were accessible (that is, by land and water, but seldom through the air). As such, perceptions of habitat may be deeply ingrained, possibly even codified in our DNA, and indeed, a genetic basis for habitat preference is well documented among some species (Jaenike and Holt 1991).

Evolution shaped our senses for survival on land and water to a degree that almost certainly influences our perceptions of what constitutes habitat, so considering the airspace as a habitat poses several challenges. The airspace is largely 3 Extending the Habitat Concept to the Airspace 49
549
invisible as are many of the features that give it structure (e.g., wind, temperature, pressure, geomagnetism). Even those features which are detectable to humans through nonvisual channels (e.g., wind) likely do not carry the same meaning as they do with flying animals. We lack certain sensory receptive organs (e.g., cilia) and the neurological infrastructure that interprets signals from those organs. Moreover, certain characteristics of aerial habitat seem to defy common sense. That a habitat could be invisible or is capable of being present one moment and gone the next is far outside most personal and professional experiences. For example, the convective thermals used by raptors represent aerial habitats that are both invisible and highly ephemeral. Despite these limitations, extensions to our senses offered by access to the airspace though manned and unmanned aircraft and advances in remote sensing technology are beginning to reveal the intricacies of an ecological airspace (Helms et al. 2016; Bridge et al. 2011; Robinson et al. 2009). 2 The Nature of Aerial Habitat
The term “aerial habitat” has been used more in reference to plants than flying animals, specifically in relation to the phyllosphere where the ecology of epiphytes and other arboreal organisms plays out, usually high in the trees (e.g., Lindow and Brandl 2003). What constitutes aerial habitat in the context of aeroecology remains a somewhat open question. In atmospheric terms, aerial habitat includes those parts of the troposphere where aerobiological activity occurs, within the planetary boundary layer and lower parts of the free atmosphere (Davy et al. 2017). Typically, most activity occurs within the first several hundred meters above ground level. In biological terms, aerial habitat occurs when and where an organism’s presence indicates use of an airborne resource (e.g., for food or as a movement corridor).

Many properties of the airspace give rise to variability in the structure of aerial habitat. These include wind speed and direction and their diverse manifestations (e.g., convection, shear, turbulence); various forms of moisture including humidity and cloud; precipitation; temperature; pressure and air density (see Chap. 2); magnetic and gravitational field strengths; odor; light conditions (e.g., polarized light, also Van Doren et al. 2017); and natural and anthropogenic gases, chemicals, and particulate matter. Other properties that may not be considered structural in relation to the airspace itself but are nonetheless influential include aerial predators and prey, topography, and anthropogenic structure (Lambertucci et al. 2015; Shipley et al. 2017). These characteristics influence the likelihood of occupancy for a given species within the occupiable airspace, which has vague upper and lower boundaries.

Animals occupying aerial habitats respond primarily to conditions aloft and are often behaviorally decoupled from land and water surfaces. However, at low altitudes, aerial habitat segues into terrestrial or aquatic habitat and animal behavior aloft is increasingly influenced by surface features. A large literature exists concerning the ecology of habitat interfaces, usually between patches of vegetation (Cadenasso et al. 2003). Where obvious transitions between the primary physical 50 R.H. Diehl et al.
550
habitat types (land–water, land–air, air–water) have received some attention, the ecology of land–water interfaces dominates. Land–air and air–water interfaces are considered hard boundaries with comparatively abrupt transitions. Research on these boundaries focuses primarily on the physics and chemistry of gas exchange and microbial communities (Belnap et al. 2003) with little attention given to higher trophic levels. In these areas, the airspace may be a functional extension of surface terrestrial or aquatic habitat rather than aerial habitat per se, and time spent aloft by vertebrates and macroscopic invertebrates can be brief and usually occurs irrespective of conditions in the interstitial airspaces (e.g., nectar feeding bats, terrestrial territoriality in birds).

As altitude increases, conditions supporting buoyancy and powered flight diminish and the upper limit for a particular species is determined by the extent to which its behavior, anatomy, and physiology have adapted to decreasing air density, temperature, oxygen, and increasing radiation. Where these upper boundary conditions lie for most species is unknown owing to the difficulty of tracking small organisms. Winds are capable of lifting and dispersing invertebrates, seeds, and numerous microorganisms including pollen, spores, and fungi to altitudes exceeding 50 km (e.g., Drake and Reynolds 2012; Westbrook and Isard 1999; Womack et al. 2010). Among high-flying vertebrates, the bar-headed goose (Anser indicus) may be the most well-studied and most extreme. These geese routinely reach altitudes exceeding 6000 m when transiting the Himalayan Mountains of the Tibetan Plateau (Hawkes et al. 2011, 2013), although these geese and other species have been documented at higher altitudes, including a Ruppell’s Vulture (Gyps rueppellii) which was struck by an aircraft at >11,000 m (Laybourne 1974). At 6000 m, air density and the partial pressure of oxygen is approximately half that at sea level under standard atmospheric conditions. Therefore, oxygen availability to power aerobic flight is considerably reduced just as the demands of flight increase as a result of reduced lift from low air density. Despite these constraints, bar-headed geese are not known to benefit from supportive winds in their trans-Himalayan migrations, instead relying on physiological adaptation to altitude and favoring calm atmospheric conditions (Hawkes et al. 2011). 3 Ecology of the Airspace
Terrestrial and aquatic habitats are home to a long list of ecological and behavioral processes including predation, competition, reproduction, and territoriality. The extent to which many of these processes are operational in the airspace is poorly known and, even if present, may be uncommon, ephemeral, or difficult to detect and observe. Certain behaviors are unambiguously at work including habitat selection, reproductive behavior, and predator–prey interactions. Others, especially those that partition resources such as exploitative competition and territoriality, even when operational, may be too short-lived or ambiguous to be useful.

Persistent resource defense territoriality generally occurs only when resources are defendable, limited, and predictable. In most cases, the energetic cost of 3 Extending the Habitat Concept to the Airspace 51
551
occupying the airspace may be high relative to that in terrestrial and aquatic habitats as the airspace has no substrate and offers little unassisted buoyant support (at least for most vertebrates). Flying animals must power movement using their own energy reserves or by harvesting energy conveniently available from the wind (Sachs 2016; Pennycuick 1998), either of which limits the defendability of airborne resources.

Also, most properties of the airspace that might serve as airborne resources (e.g., favorable wind, airborne invertebrates as food) may be both unpredictable and effectively unlimited at any given place and time. As a result, resource defense territoriality of airspaces is likely either uncommon or assumes an alternative form than that which has been previously recognized. For example, instead of defending a particular static area bounded in three dimensions, perhaps territoriality manifests as competition in space relative to other individuals (e.g., location in a flock or breeding swarm), which may be more spatially dynamic than the traditional view of a territory. Flying animals, particularly some invertebrates, do use the airspace to defend underlying terrestrial or aquatic habitats and their associated resources. We regard this use of airspace as an extension of surface territoriality as opposed to strict defense of an aerial resource.

Like other difficult-to-study habitats, the airspace offers a relatively unexplored context for examining the generality of ecological theory. If a given ecological process is present because the airspace and organism meet known criteria required for that process to be operational, then the durability of that concept is reinforced.

Alternatively, an ecological process that is present despite the absence of expected criteria may call the generality of theory into question. Similar reasoning applies for ecological processes not present in the airspace. We discuss the occurrence of some of these ecological processes to emphasize the point that the airspace functions as habitat and that the ecology of the airspace in many ways differs little from the ecology of the land and the water.

3.1 Habitat Quality, Use, and Selection
Aerial habitats, like their terrestrial and aquatic counterparts, vary in quality in ways that influence survival and reproductive success (Jones 2001). Organisms react to this variation, although reactions differ among species. Microorganisms may be limited in their ability to “select” habitat, but distinct microbial communities exist in the airspace. Community composition is influenced by adjacent source terrestrial/aquatic habitats (Bowers et al. 2011; Brodie et al. 2007), weather (Harrison et al. 2005), and microhabitat differences in the airspace (Womack et al. 2010). Winds aerosolize microorganisms upward from the land (especially from plants; Vaı¨tilingom et al. 2012) or water and then can horizontally transport the larger microbes and pollen, sometimes for long distances (e.g., from the Sahara to the Alps; Meola et al. 2015), mixing communities. Once they have been passively dispersed, species differ in their ability to survive extreme temperature shifts, radiation, osmotic shocks, and desiccation (Joly et al. 2015), conditions that vary spatially and temporally (Womack et al. 2010). Eventually microorganisms return 52 R.H. Diehl et al.
552
to earth due to wind drift, sedimentation, or precipitation (Depre´s et al. 2012).

Adaptations to the harsh life of the atmosphere (e.g., pigments to reduce the stress from radiation, cold shock proteins; Joly et al. 2015) have likely contributed to the successful inoculation of life in some of its most extreme aquatic and terrestrial habitats (e.g., polar ice sheets; Gonzalez-Toril et al. 2009).

In contrast to microorganisms’ passive habitat use, flying animals often select habitats because they provide resources in support of some critical behavior such as foraging, reproduction, or migration. For example, migrating birds choose routes and weather conditions (e.g., Fig. 3.1) that allow them to manage the often conflicting goals of minimizing travel time, energy expenditure, and risk (Alerstam and Lindstr€om 1990); these birds often respond to wind support more than temperature and humidity when selecting the routes and altitudes for their movements (Liechti et al. 2000). For instance, to assist their long-distance migrations over the ocean, bar-tailed godwits time departures from Alaska to coincide with weather likely to produce tailwinds (Gill et al. 2009). In contrast, some migratory insects choose their altitudes primarily based on atmospheric turbulence rather than tail wind assistance (Aralimarad et al. 2011). Diurnal soaring birds, such as the golden eagle, restrict their flight to a narrow band of low-altitude airspace as wind speeds increase (Lanzone et al. 2012). These and other forms of aerial habitat selection appear to be non-density dependent, since the resources being selected (e.g., favorable winds) are not thought to be limiting so as to create conditions for competitive exclusion.

A feature of habitat selection that distinguishes it from mere habitat use is that it results from the relationship between the costs and benefits of occupancy. For instance, during nocturnal migration, birds appear to select the lowest altitude where they first encounter supportive wind conditions even if “better” winds occur at higher altitudes (Mateos-Rodrı´guez and Liechti 2012). Presumably birds are unwilling to cross a cost barrier to seek out potentially more advantageous flying conditions suggesting that frequent altitude changes in search of optimal flying conditions may be costly (but see Bowlin et al. 2015).

3.2 Reproduction
The airspace provides many resources supporting reproduction, ranging from the concrete (space for asexual division, gamete dispersal, or copulation; protection from predators) to the abstract (a clear channel for communicating with potential mates). Many plants are pollinated through the action of the wind either directly or indirectly by affecting the flight paths of their pollinators. Bacteria have shorter reproductive cycles than their typical residency times in the air column and may have multiple generations between their ascents and descents (Burrows et al. 2009; Sattler et al. 2001).

Most aerial reproductive behavior in flying animals occurs among invertebrates.

Insect mating swarms can take many forms. Under seasonally appropriate weather conditions, Diptera form highly localized mating swarms and may maintain 3 Extending the Habitat Concept to the Airspace 53
553
Fig. 3.1 (a) Weather radar reflectivity at 3.51
antenna elevation from Brownsville, TX (KBRO) showing layered bird migration on 12 May 2006, 2330 CST.

A white dot shows the location of the radar. (b) The vertical profile of reflectivity computed from the radar reflectivity volume scan on this day, and the (c) associated wind profile showing the direction from which the wind was blowing that day at 1900 CST. The dashed circles in (a) represent 16 and 32 km rangerings and correspond to the ~1000 and ~2000 m height AGL dashed lines, respectively, in (b) and (c) 54 R.H. Diehl et al.
554
consistent locations with respect to conspicuous “swarm markers” in the landscape (e.g., a geographic feature or patch of sunlight; Sullivan 1981). Alternatively, mating swarms may occupy enormous areas (Dublon and Sumpter 2014). The mayfly swarming event depicted in Fig. 3.2 occupies more than 3000 km2 of Lake Erie’s surface, at least 12% of its total area. Emergence generally occurs when both water temperatures exceed 20
C (Corkum et al. 2006) and winds are moving toward the shore, as molting occurs on land after emergence; therefore, aerial habitat selection affects reproductive timing. Aerial reproductive swarming of this magnitude also serves as predator defense, as the massive pulse of food for local predators overwhelms the predator community to the point of satiation (Sweeney and Vannote 1982; but see Allan and Flecker 1989). Aerial copulation is common among invertebrates (e.g., Scott 1972; Allan and Flecker 1989), but appears to be rare among vertebrates. However, there is some evidence that red bats Fig. 3.2 Emergence of Hexagenia mayflies from western Lake Erie on 18 June 2015, 2204 CST as captured by Cleveland, Ohio weather radar, KCLE (white dot). Radar reflectivities (dBZ) show varying mayfly densities aloft. The line segment in the upper image (a) west of the radar identifies the south-to-north cross section through the radar’s volume scan shown below (b) 3 Extending the Habitat Concept to the Airspace 55
555
(Lasiurus borealis) and hoary bats (Lasiurus cinereus) copulate in flight (Cryan and Brown 2007).

The airspace is an important area for mating displays across taxa. Aerial lekking has been described for some insects (e.g., Lepidoptera, Andersson et al. 1998).

Eusocial insects, particularly the Hymenoptera and Blattodea (e.g., termites), often make nuptial flights, although many of these occur close to the ground, where the role of the airspace may be limited (e.g., Dial and Vaughan 1987). Some bats may respond to turbulence when choosing mating display locations; this hypothesis has been suggested as an explanation for why bats congregate in the lee of wind turbines, a behavior which unfortunately often results in mortality (Cryan et al. 2014). Many birds have song flights and elaborate aerial displays, including the roding display of the Eurasian woodcock (Scolopax rusticola; Hoodless et al. 2008), the dive and shuttle of Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna; Stiles 1982), and the sky dancing of the Montagu’s harrier (Circus pygargus; Arroyo et al. 2013).

In addition to visual displays, many acoustic and olfactory breeding signals are transmitted through the air, including an assortment of vocalizations, stridulations, airborne pheromones, and pollinator attractors. Many of these signals evolved characteristics that allow them to travel efficiently through the air to receivers, taking forms that propagate with minimal degradation (Morton 1975). The signals themselves compete for airspace, or at least clear transmission through it, by varying in ways that minimize overlap within a community (Nelson and Marler 1990). This variation can either be an adaptive characteristic of a species- or population-specific signal (e.g., a distinct floral scent; Wright and Schiestl 2009) or the result of an individual modulating its signal in real time in response to current acoustic or olfactory “clutter” (e.g., modulating a bird song frequency to avoid overlap with noise; Goodwin and Podos 2013).

3.3 Foraging, Competition, and Resource Partitioning
The airspace supports considerable foraging habitat for many aerial specialists and obligate insectivores (e.g., swallows, flycatchers, insectivorous bats). Other flying animals depend upon predictable seasonal resource pulses (Yang et al. 2008).

Usually these occur as the invertebrate mating swarms described above, but some aerial predators have adapted to exploit seasonal songbird migrations as a food source. The giant noctule bat (Nyctalus lasiopterus) will opportunistically switch diets to prey almost exclusively upon migrating songbirds (Popa-Lisseanu et al. 2007; Fukui et al. 2013). Eleonora’s falcon (Falco eleonorae) also takes migrating songbirds in flight and appears to synchronize its reproduction with the seasonal availability of this food source (Wink and Ristow 2000). Similarly, peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) and red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) hunt outside the large breeding colonies of insectivorous Brazilian free-tailed bats (Tadarida brasiliensis; Lee and Kuo 2001), which in turn prey on migrating noctuid moths.

This sets up an aerial tritrophic interaction (raptors > bats > noctuid moths) that occurs each summer and is mediated by abiotic conditions in the airspace that 56 R.H. Diehl et al.
556
determine the favorability of conditions for moth migration (McCracken et al. 2008).

Intra- and interspecific competition over aerial food resources also occurs in the airspace, although the difficulty in defending airborne resources together with limited niche overlap among competitors reduces the likelihood that such competition will arise (Mills 1986). Bats and common nighthawks (Chordeiles minor) have been observed in competitive interaction over insects at a human light source (Shields and Bildstein 1979). Altitudinal resource partitioning is hypothesized to explain differences in niche breadth among some avian aerial insectivores, wherein physical adaptations have allowed certain swift species to forage at higher altitudes and take advantage of larger and higher flying insects, thus reducing competition with swifts at lower altitudes (Collins 2015). Several species of desert bats differed in the locations and timing of foraging bouts over water sources in the Central Negev Highlands of Israel, suggestive of aerial resource partitioning due to competition for a shared insect resource (Razgour et al. 2011). 4 Anthropogenic Impacts
Even as human encroachment into the airspace advances, it is difficult to know whether certain taxa experience non-compensatory levels of mortality (Drewitt and Langston 2006; Kunz et al. 2007) which complicates how development of the airspace can be managed to reduce impacts to flying animal populations. In this context, recognizing the airspace as habitat may have meaningful consequences for species conservation and management. The habitat concept is necessarily central to international species-based environmental law (e.g., US Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act, EU’s Habitats Directive and Birds Directive) and influences how biologists that work for regulatory agencies interpret the law in practice. That many parts of the airspace fall within the habitat concept could change the scope of application of these laws to include vast new areas. However, regulatory references to the airspace as habitat are scant; we could find only one and it argued against recognizing the airspace as habitat. In the context of a review of New Zealand’s Resource Management Act which recognizes protection of significant habitats, Wallace (2007) specifically argues against characterizing flight corridors or migration routes as habitat because those areas are “disconnected from breeding and feeding spaces.” Aside from being imprecise (many organisms do breed and feed in the airspace, even if the waterbirds considered by this Act do not), the point is also irrelevant since breeding and foraging are not required characteristics of habitat and are not the only habitat-related behaviors critical to survival (e.g., hibernating, roosting; Cryan and Veilleux 2007, Mehlman et al. 2005). Even if waterbirds were the only taxon of concern for a regulatory agency, they repeatedly travel similar routes between feeding and roosting locations (Everaert and Stienen 2007; Cox and Afton 1996), so any anthropogenic disruption in their path could have negative consequences on their populations by increasing mortality and decreasing reproductive success. Recognizing the airspace as habitat 3 Extending the Habitat Concept to the Airspace 57
557
is critical for species conservation and management that consider entire life histories (Davy et al. 2017).

4.1 Threats to Aerial Organisms
The actions of society through development, commerce, transportation, policy, and resource extraction increasingly result in conflicts with flying animals that have impacts ranging from the safety of airline travel (Dolbeer and Wright 2008) to the price of corn (Boyles et al. 2011). The increasing construction of tall structures may result in long-term disruptions of aerial habitats, including wind turbines (Arnett et al. 2010); power lines (Martin 2011; Bevanger 1998); buildings, especially those using glass construction (Loss et al. 2014; Klem 1990); and some communications towers (Gehring et al. 2011; Gehring et al. 2009). One of the newest anthropogenic entrants to the airspace, unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), pose possible threats in that they may interfere with natural animal behavior and in other ways disrupt aerial ecosystems (e.g., Lambertucci et al. 2015). Current US federal guidelines allow UAS operations in all classes of airspace except those in the vicinity of airports (Class B; Federal Aviation Administration 2015a), but because proposed guidelines require operators to keep UAS within visual line-of-sight (Federal Aviation Administration 2015b), UAS use generally occurs relatively close to the ground within the region of most flying animal activity.

Anthropogenic development of the airspace creates novel challenges for flying animals, many of which are not adapted to flying in cluttered environments. Put another way, “perceptually [birds] have no prior for human artifacts such a buildings, power wires or wind turbines” (Martin 2011). In addition, not only may organisms lack the sensory capabilities to avoid development, but their senses may trick them into responding inappropriately to it. Ecological traps occur when rapid changes in the environment produce misleading cues about the quality of habitats. Based on these cues, organisms may select lower quality habitat which leads to lower survival or reproductive success, even though higher quality habitat may be available. Numerous examples of ecological traps have been documented for terrestrial habitats, and anthropogenic factors are usually responsible (Robertson and Hutto 2006; Schlaepfer et al. 2002). The airspace is no exception.

Migrating birds drawn into circling illuminated communications towers, particularly those with guy wires, in low cloud conditions die in large numbers (Gehring et al. 2009; Larkin and Frase 1988). Under these conditions, airspace in the vicinity of lighted towers might be considered low-quality aerial habitat. Nonetheless, birds in these circumstances remain in flight, presumably because the hazy glow of a lighted tower in cloud is in some way attractive. Similarly, bats that die in the vicinity of wind turbines may select this aerial habitat, perhaps as a mating location or because turbines concentrate insects as food (Cryan et al. 2014).

Anthropogenic structures and machines in the airspace are not the only threat to aerial organisms. Chemicals and particulate matter as air pollutants also degrade aerial habitats, and the impacts of air pollution on animals in flight are poorly understood. Is the health of flying animals disproportionately affected owing to 58 R.H. Diehl et al.
558
their relatively high metabolic rates during flight? Does air pollution interfere with olfactory or visual cues necessary for foraging, reproduction, and orientation? Might pollution that impacts aerial invertebrates have a trophic effect on their aerial predators? Does extreme air pollution impede visibility enough to increase risk of collisions with structure? Does pollution interfere with the composition and metabolic processes of aerial microbial communities in ways that affect climate and human health?
Anthropogenic structures that intrude upon aerial habitats can be designed, refitted, or adapted to limit their impacts on flying animals. Communications towers can be designed with lighting and structural support that reduces collision risk (Gehring et al. 2009). Curtailment of wind turbines has been shown to reduce bat mortality (Arnett et al. 2010), and current research is exploring ultraviolet (UV) illumination of turbines as a way of dissuading bats from approaching altogether (Gorresen et al. 2015). Combination camera/acoustic detection and deterrence systems are being explored as a means of reducing eagle mortality at wind facilities (Sinclair and DeGeorge 2016). A variety of markers are now available which increase the visibility of powerlines to birds in flight (e.g., Sporer et al. 2013). UV reflecting patterns on glass, which are visible to birds but not humans, may be effective at deterring birds from colliding with glass structure (Klem 2009).

Where technological deterrents are impractical or otherwise ineffective, the airspaces themselves may require protection. Airspace reserves may be needed to support the conservation of species as human development of aerial habitats continues and populations face compounding pressures across all phases of their life cycle (e.g., terrestrial habitat loss, mismatched phenology through climate change, predation and competition from nonnative species). Such reserves might focus on regulating development of the airspace near traditional movement corridors or in other areas where high densities of aerial organisms commonly occur or where species of concern are prone to fly (Diehl 2013; Lambertucci et al. 2015). Aerial reserves may be appropriate in areas where human–wildlife conflicts become a human safety concern or development presents a population-level risk to flying organisms or the ecological services they provide.

The preservation of aerial habitats may be quite different than traditional approaches for terrestrial and aquatic habitats. Most terrestrial and aquatic habitat preservation focuses on particular areas of concern and is intended to be continuous and long term, as disturbance can have lasting effects. In contrast, many human– wildlife conflicts are temporally dependent. Where animal use of aerial habitat is predictable, preservation may involve the timing of human activities rather than permanent restrictions on a particular area. For instance, proper lighting and curtailment of wind turbines when flying animals are most active can reduce or eliminate systematic impacts (Arnett et al. 2010; Duerr et al. 2012). Turbine curtailment could conceivably occur over even short timescales such as when fog or low cloud interferes with animals’ ability to avoid structures (Kirsch et al. 2015).

Many North American cities participate in seasonal lights-out programs, turning off the lights of large city buildings during peak bird migration times. These examples 3 Extending the Habitat Concept to the Airspace 59
559
illustrate how anthropogenic hazards to flying animals can be reduced by timing the use of airspaces to complement animal phenology.

Brazilian free-tailed bats offer an interesting conservation case study. Brazilian free-tailed bats are migratory and roost during summer in caves across the southern tier of the continental USA, with exceptionally large concentrations in central Texas (Wilkins 1989). Bracken, Frio, and other caves in this region host summer maternity colonies containing millions of these bats; the colony in Bracken Cave is one of the largest single bat colonies in the world (McCracken 2003). In the evenings, they depart the caves en masse to forage on noctuid moths and other insects near the planetary boundary layer (Westbrook 2008; Fig. 3.3).

Conservation organizations acquired land to protect terrestrial habitat in the immediate vicinity of the cave entrance. Protecting these areas from human development indirectly offers overlying airspaces some associated protection by excluding potentially hazardous anthropogenic structures (e.g., wind turbines, communications towers) from the immediate area. Protection of Bracken Cave and its airspace preserves the phenomenon of mass exodus (sensu Brower and Malcolm 1991), the biological integrity of its populations (e.g., Allee effects, Langwig et al. 2015), the ecological services these bats provide to agriculture (Boyles et al. 2011; Davidai et al. 2015), and the educational opportunities afforded by these conspicuous movements (Pennisi et al. 2004). Even though Bracken and other caves in the region are occupied only half of the year (March through October), protecting the integrity of the cave itself from any form of development or even routine visitation is a year-round necessity as the cave represents a nonrenewable resource for bats. The immediate overlying airspace is also critical habitat as millions of bats transit this space when moving to and from foraging habitat. In contrast to the protection of the cave, aerial habitat in the vicinity of the cave could be considered renewable and its preservation seasonal.

The reserve concept is often oriented toward nonhuman species protection, but understanding and perhaps regulating airspace use with respect to flying animals has financial and human safety implications as well. From 1990 to 2007, bird strikes by civilian aircraft accounted for the overwhelming majority of monetary losses associated with wildlife strikes (~$125 to ~$625 million annually in the USA) and resulted in 10 fatalities and 164 injuries (Dolbeer and Wright 2008). After US Airways Flight 1549 struck a flock of Canada Geese (Branta canadensis) and crash landed into the Hudson River, there were calls for improved monitoring of bird movements (Marra et al. 2009).

Bird-avoidance models exist that combine both historic and current data to identify times and places of increased risk of bird strikes for low-flying aircraft (Shamoun-Baranes et al. 2008). These warning systems forecast hazards using near real-time feedback from biological data collected from weather radar. However, classification algorithms designed to identify and extract biological data from weather radar data streams are rudimentary at best. Currently, no published algorithms exist that can differentiate among types of biological echoes (i.e., taxa) on weather radars, although some effort has been made to distinguish biological from nonbiological radar echoes (Park et al. 2009; Bachmann and Zrnic´ 2007).
60 R.H. Diehl et al.
560
Fig. 3.3 Series of weather
radar sweeps showing the
evening exodus of Brazilian
free-tailed bats from Frio
Cave (yellow dot) near
Concan, Texas, during the
evening of 22 July 2014. The
white dot shows the location
of the weather radar (KDFX)
at Laughlin AFB, Texas.

Colors show differential
phase, a radar polarimetry
measure used here because it
best distinguishes emerging
bats (browns, yellows, and
dark greens) from other radar
bioscatterers (light green).

The first four sweeps are
separated by 10 min; the fifth
sweep occurred 30 min after
the fourth and shows the
movement more developed
and bats emerging from other
roosts in the vicinity
3 Extending the Habitat Concept to the Airspace 61
561
Identifying radar echoes to taxon is critical to the operational usefulness of any near real-time warning system, since large birds pose the greatest hazard to manned aircraft (Dolbeer and Wright 2008). Reliable information on the passage of large birds would enable responders to manage aircraft altitudes and approach and departure times and directions as needed. Figure 3.4 shows a typical autumn Fig. 3.4 Weather radars capture a moment during the onset of waterfowl migration toward the SSE across southeastern Wisconsin and northeastern Illinois on 22 Nov 2010, at ~17:45 CST. A 10 km diameter airspace centered on O’Hare International Airport is represented by a yellow circle. The inset shows changes in the estimated number of birds within this circle as the migration begins and progresses. (The abundance calculation assumes mallard-sized birds for simplicity and because good estimates of radar cross section are available for Mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) to convert radar reflectivity to bird numbers (O’Neal et al. 2010; Chilson et al. 2012b); the likely presence of larger birds such as geese and perhaps some cranes reduces these estimates of bird abundances.). The arrow indicates when in the time series this radar capture occurred 62 R.H. Diehl et al.
562
waterfowl migration toward the SSE with ducks, Canada Geese, and some Sandhill Cranes (Grus canadensis) departing habitats throughout southeastern Wisconsin and northeastern Illinois. Waves of waterfowl passed through the airspace of O’Hare International Airport, near Chicago, Illinois (Fig. 3.4, time series). In this image, the northern-most band of waterfowl radar echoes running west of the “Lake Michigan” label passed through O’Hare airspace at ~19:50 and was responsible for the large pulse of waterfowl seen in the time series. These migratory pushes out of southeastern Wisconsin occur routinely each autumn, so during this time O’Hare becomes both heavily used commercial airspace and seasonally predictable waterfowl aerial habitat. 5 Conclusions
Definitions matter. How habitat is defined influences law, policy, and the actions of resource managers in interpreting policy. Frequent efforts to redefine habitat in ways that capture perceived shortcomings testify to the continuing importance of the habitat concept. The airspace easily satisfies widely recognized definitions of habitat and shares many ecological properties of other more familiar habitat types.

Considering the airspace as habitat also encourages new perspectives on the habitat concept. For example, airspace lacks many of the familiar visible cues we associate with habitat such as vegetation, substrate, or topographic relief. The energetic costs of occupying aerial habitats are often high, and critical aerial resources can be simultaneously abundant, ephemeral, and unpredictable with respect to any one location. Identifying properties shared across all major habitat types—terrestrial, aquatic, and aerial—clarifies our understanding of habitat by focusing our attention on its most fundamental and essential elements.

Considering the airspace as habitat also reminds us that time as much as place is a critical component of habitat, since many of the airspace’s resources for flying animals depend upon the weather and are therefore highly dynamic. Yet, many widely recognized definitions of habitat explicitly refer only to place and tend to reinforce a rather static notion of habitat (but see Dingle 2014; Southwood 1977).

This conforms with human perception of habitats as generally stable through time, at least in the manner we are accustomed to instinctively experiencing them, even if academically, we might recognize that the suitability of nearly any habitat for a given species varies through time, often seasonally if not through ecological succession or some other biotic or abiotic process. In short, that habitat is “where one would go to find it” (Odum 1959) is no more important than when one would go to find it.

The habitat concept has proven to be influential in shaping and informing environmental law and natural resource management in many countries. It is unknown whether aerial habitat represents an expansion of the habitat concept that is applicable under existing law, for example, if the need should arise to create airspace reserves or otherwise regulate the airspace to ensure human safety or protect animal populations. Accelerating human occupancy and development of 3 Extending the Habitat Concept to the Airspace 63
563
aerial habitats has created a greater need for regulation of the airspace, and clarification of the habitat concept is critical for developing or interpreting laws and regulatory practices that protect species when and where they are present.

We have much to learn about the ecology of the airspace. The dynamism of aerial habitat leads to dynamism of aeroecological processes generally, making them challenging to study, even with the aid of contemporary technology (Chilson et al. 2012a; Bridge et al. 2011). Recognizing that the airspace is habitat allows the known ecology of terrestrial and aquatic habitats to serve as models for predicting the conditions required for a wide range of ecological and behavioral processes to be operational in the airspace.

Acknowledgements We thank S. Soileau, H. Hoffmann, and the editors for helpful input on this chapter. The USGS Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center Ecolunch group provided valuable feedback as the concept of aerial habitat was developed. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

References
Alerstam T, Lindstr€om A (1990) Optimal bird migration: the relative importance of time, energy, and safety. In: Gwinner E (ed) Bird migration. Springer, Berlin, pp 331–351 Allan JD, Flecker AS (1989) The mating biology of a mass-swarming mayfly. Anim Behav 37:
361–371
Andersson S, Rydell J, Swensson GE (1998) Light, predation and the lekking behavior of the ghost swift Hepialus humuli (L.) (Lepidoptera: Hepialidae). Proc R Soc Lond B 264:1345–1351 Aralimarad P, Reynolds AM, Lim KS, Reynolds DR, Chapman JW (2011) Flight altitude selection increases orientation performance in high-flying nocturnal insect migrants. Anim Behav 82:
1221–1225
Arnett EB, Huso MM, Schirmacher MR, Hayes JP (2010) Altering turbine speed reduces bat mortality at wind-energy facilities. Front Ecol Environ 9:209–214 Arroyo B, Mougeot F, Bretagnolle V (2013) Characteristics and sexual functions of sky-dancing displays in a semi-colonial raptor, the Montagu’s Harrier (Circus Pygargus). J Raptor Res 47:
185–196
Bachmann S, Zrnic´ DS (2007) Spectral density of polarimetric variables separating biological scatterers in the VAD display. J Atmos Ocean Technol 24:1186–1198 Belnap J, Hawkes CV, Firestone MK (2003) Boundaries in miniature: two examples from soil.

Bioscience 53:739–749
Bevanger K (1998) Biological and conservation aspects of bird mortality caused by electricity power lines: a review. Biol Conserv 86:67–76
Bowers RM, McLetchie S, Knight R, Fierer N (2011) Spatial variability in airborne bacterial communities across land-use types and their relationship to the bacterial communities of potential source environments. ISME J 5:601–612
Bowlin MS, Enstrom DA, Murphy BJ, Plaza E, Jurich P, Cochran J (2015) Unexplained altitude changes in a migrating thrush: Long-flight altitude data from radio-telemetry. Auk 132:
808–816
Boyles JG, Cryan PM, McCracken GF, Kunz TH (2011) Economic importance of bats in agriculture. Science 332:41–42 64 R.H. Diehl et al.
564
Bridge ES, Thorup K, Bowlin MS, Chilson PB, Diehl RH, Fleron RW, Hartl P, Kays R, Kelly JF, Robinson WD, Wikelski M (2011) Technology on the move: recent and forthcoming innovations for tracking migratory birds. Bioscience 61:689–698 Brodie EL, DeSantis TZ, Parker JPM, Zubietta IX, Piceno YM, Andersen GL (2007) Urban aerosols harbor diverse and dynamic bacterial populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:299–304 Brower LP, Malcolm SB (1991) Animal migrations: endangered phenomena. Am Zool 31:
265–276
Burrows SM, Elbert W, Lawrence MG, P€oschl U (2009) Bacteria in the global atmosphere–Part 1:
review and synthesis of literature data for different ecosystems. Atmos Chem Phys 9:
9263–9280
Cadenasso ML, Pickett STA, Weathers KC, Bell SS, Benning TL, Carreiro MM, Dawson TE (2003) An interdisciplinary and synthetic approach to ecological boundaries. Bioscience 53:
717–722
Chilson PB, Frick WF, Kelly JF, Howard KW, Larkin RP, Diehl RH, Westbrook JK, Kelly TA, Kunz TH (2012a) Partly cloudy with a chance of migration: weather, radars, and aeroecology.

Bull Am Meteorol Soc 93:669–686
Chilson PB, Frick WF, Stepanian PM, Shipley JR, Kunz TH, Kelly JK (2012b) Estimating animal densities in the aerosphere using weather radar: To Z or not to Z? Ecosphere 3:72 Collins CT (2015) Food habits and resource partitioning in a guild of Neotropical swifts. Wilson J Ornithol 127:239–248
Corkum LD, Ciborowski JJH, Dolan DM (2006) Timing of Hexagenia (Ephemeridae:

Ephemeroptera) mayfly swarms. Can J Zool 84:1616–1622
Cox RR, Afton AD (1996) Evening flights of female northern pintails from a major roost site.

Condor 89:810–819
Cryan PM, Brown AC (2007) Migration of bats past a remote island offers clues toward the problem of bat fatalities at wind turbines. Biol Conserv 139:1–11 Cryan PM, Veilleux JP (2007) Migration and use of autumn, winter, and spring roosts by tree bats.

In: Lacki MJ, Hayes HJP, Kurta A (eds) Bats in forests: conservation and management. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 153–175
Cryan PM, Gorrensen PM, Hein CD, Schirmacher MR, Diehl RH, Huso MM, Hayman DTS, Fricker PD, Bonaccorso FJ, Johnson DH, Heist K, Dalton DC (2014) Behavior of bats at wind turbines. PNAS 111:15126–15131
Davidai N, Westbrook JK, Lessard J, Hallam TG, McCracken GF (2015) The importance of natural habitats to Brazilian free-tailed bats in intensive agricultural landscapes in the Winter Garden region of Texas, United States. Biol Conserv 190:107–114 Davy CM, Ford AT, Fraser KC (2017) Aeroconservation for the fragmented skies. Conserv Lett. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12347
Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, Van Dyck H (2003) Towards a functional resource-based concept of habitat: a butterfly biology viewpoint. Oikos 102:417–426 Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, van Dyck H (2006) Habitats and resources: the need for a resourcebased definition to conserve butterflies. Biodivers Conserv 15:1943–1966 Depre´s VR, Huffman JA, Burrows SM, Hoose C, Safatov AS, Buryak G, Fr€ohlich-Nowoisky J, Elbert W, Andreae MO, P€oschl U, Jaenicke R (2012) Primary biological aerosol particles in the atmosphere: a review. Tellus B 64. https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusb.v64i0.15598 Dial KP, Vaughan TA (1987) Opportunistic predation on alate termites in Kenya. Biotropica 19:
185–187
Diehl RH (2013) The airspace is habitat. Trends Ecol Evol 28:377–379 Dingle H (2014) Migration: the biology of life on the move, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Dolbeer RA, Wright S (2008) Wildlife strikes to civil aircraft in the United States 1990–2007.

Bird Strike Committee Proceedings
3 Extending the Habitat Concept to the Airspace 65
565
Drake VA, Reynolds DR (2012) Radar entomology: observing insect flight and migration. CABI, Wallingford
Drewitt AL, Langston RHW (2006) Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds. Ibis 148:29–42 Dublon IAN, Sumpter DJT (2014) Flying insect swarms. Curr Biol 24:R828–R830 Duerr AE, Miller TA, Lanzone M, Brandes D, Cooper J, O’Malley K, Maisonneuve C, Tremblay J, Katzner T (2012) Testing an emerging paradigm in migration ecology shows surprising differences in efficiency between flight modes. PLoS One 7:e35548. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0035548
Elton CS (1966) The pattern of animal communities. Chapman and Hall, London Everaert J, Stienen EWM (2007) Impact of wind turbines on birds in Zeebrugge (Belgium):
significant effect on breeding tern colony due to collisions. Biodivers Conserv 16:3345–3359 Federal Aviation Administration (2015a) Notice JO 7210.882. Unmanned aircraft operations in the national airspace system (NAS)
Federal Aviation Administration (2015b) 14 CFR Chapter I. Clarification of the applicability of aircraft registration requirements for unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) and request for information regarding electronic registration for UAS Fukui D, Dewa H, Katsuta S, Sato A (2013) Bird predation by the birdlike noctule in Japan.

J Mammal 94:657–661
Gehring J, Kerlinger P, Manville AM (2009) Communication towers, lights, and birds: successful methods of reducing the frequency of avian collisions. Ecol Appl 19:505–514 Gehring JL, Kerlinger P, Manville AM (2011) The role of tower height and guy wires on avian collisions with communication towers. J Wildl Manage 75:848–855 Gill RE Jr, Tibbitts TL, Douglas DC, Handel CM, Mulcahy DM, Gottschalck JC, Warnock N, McCaffery BJ, Battley PF, Piersma T (2009) Extreme endurance flights by landbirds crossing the Pacific Ocean: ecological corridor rather than barrier? Proc R Soc Lond B 276:447–457 Gonzalez-Toril E, Amils R, Delmas RJ, Petit J-R, Komarek J, Elster J (2009) Bacterial diversity of autotrophic enriched cultures from remote, glacial Antarctic, Alpine and Andean aerosol, snow and soil samples. Biogeosciences 6:33–44
Goodwin SE, Podos J (2013) Shift of song frequencies in response to masking tones. Anim Behav 85:435–440
Gorresen PM, Cryan PM, Dalton DC, Wolf S, Johnson JA, Todd CM, Bonaccorso FJ (2015) Dim ultraviolet light as a means of deterring activity by the Hawaiian hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus semotus. Endanger Species Res 28:249–257
Hall LS, Krausman PR, Morrison ML (1997) The habitat concept and a plea for a standard terminology. Wildl Soc Bull 25:173–182 Harrison RM, Jones AM, Biggins PD, Pomeroy N, Cox CS, Kidd SP, Hobman JL, Brown NL, Beswick A (2005) Climate factors influencing bacterial count in background air samples. Int J Biometeorol 49:167–178
Hawkes LA, Balachandran S, Batbayar N, Butler PJ, Frappell PB, Milsom WK, Tseveenmyadag N, Newman SH, Scott GR, Sathiyaselvam P, Takekawa JY, Wikelski M, Bishop CM (2011) The trans-Himalayan flights of bar-headed geese (Anser indicus). Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:9516–9519
Hawkes LA, Balachandran S, Batbayar N, Butler PJ, Chua B, Douglas DC, Frappell PB, Hou Y, Milsom WK, Newman SH, Prosser DJ, Sathiyaselvam P, Scott GR, Takekawa JY, Natsagdorj T, Wikelski M, Witt MJ, Yan B, Bishop CM (2013) The paradox of extreme high-altitude migration in bar-headed geese Anser indicus. Proc R Soc Lond B: Biol Sci 280. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.2114
Hedenstr€om A, Norevik G, Warfvinge K, Anderson A, Ba¨ckman J, Åkesson S (2016) Annual 10-month aerial life phase in the common swift Apus apus. Curr Biol 26. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.cub.2016.1009.1014
Helms JA, Godfrey AP, Ames T, Bridge ES (2016) Predator foraging altitudes reveal the structure of aerial insect communities. Sci Rep 6:28670. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep28670 Hoodless AN, Inglis JG, Doucet J-P, Aebischer NJ (2008) Vocal individuality in the roding calls of woodcock Scolopax rusticola and their use to validate a survey method. Ibis 150:80–89 66 R.H. Diehl et al.
566
Jaenike J, Holt RD (1991) Genetic variation for habitat preference: evidence and explanations.

Am Nat 137:S67–S90
Joly M, Amato P, Sancelme M, Vinatier V, Abrantes M, Deguilluame L, Delort A-M (2015) Survival of microbial isolates from clouds towards simulated atmospheric stress factors.

Atmos Environ 117:92–98
Jones J (2001) Habitat selection studies in avian ecology: a critical review. Auk 118:557–562 Kirsch EM, Wellik MJ, Suarez M, Diehl RH, Lutes J, Woyczik W, Krapfl J, Sojda R (2015) Observation of sandhill cranes’ (Grus canadensis) flight behavior in heavy fog. Wilson J Ornithol 127:281–288
Klem D Jr (1990) Collisions between birds and windows: mortality and prevention. J Field Ornithol 61:120–130
Klem D Jr (2009) Avian mortality at windows: the second largest human source of bird mortality on Earth. Tundra to tropics: connecting birds, habitats and people. In: Proceedings of the 4th international partners in flight conference: Tundra to Tropics. USDA, Forest Service, McAllen, Texas, pp 244–251
Kunz TH, Arnett EB, Erickson WP, Hoar AR, Johnson GD, Larkin RP, Strickland MD, Thresher RW, Tuttle MD (2007) Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats: questions, research, needs, and hypotheses. Front Ecol Environ 5:315–324 Kunz TH, Gauthreaux SA Jr, Hristov NI, Horn JW, Jones G, Kalko EK, Larkin RP, McCracken GF, Swartz SM, Srygley RB, Dudley R, Westbrook JK, Wikelski M (2008) Aeroecology:
probing and modeling the aerosphere. Integr Comp Biol 48:1–11 Lambertucci SA, Shepard ELC, Wilson RP (2015) Human-wildlife conflicts in a crowded airspace. Science 348:502–504 Langwig KE, Frick WF, Reynolds R, Parise KL, Drees KP, Hoyt JR, Cheng TL, Kunz TH, Foster JT, Kilpatrick AM (2015) Host and pathogen ecology drive the seasonal dynamics of a fungal disease, white-nose syndrome. Proc R Soc Lond B: Biol Sci 282. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb. 2014.2335
Lanzone M, Miller TA, Turk P, Brandes D, Halverson C, Maisonneuve C, Tremblay J, Cooper J, O’Malley K, Brooks RP, Katzner T (2012) Flight responses by a migratory soaring raptor to changing meteorological conditions. Biol Lett 8:710–713 Larkin RP, Frase BA (1988) Circular paths of birds flying near a broadcasting tower in cloud.

J Comp Psychol 102:90–93
Laybourne RC (1974) Collision between a vulture and an aircraft at an altitude of 37,000 feet.

Wilson Bull 86:461–462
Lee Y, Kuo Y (2001) Predation on Mexican free-tailed bats by peregrine falcons and red-tailed hawks. J Raptor Res 35:115–123
Liechti F, Klaasen M, Bruderer B (2000) Predicting migratory flight altitudes by physiological migration models. Auk 117:205–214
Liechti F, Witvliet W, Weber R, Bachler E (2013) First evidence of a 200-day non-stop flight in a bird. Nat Commun 4. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms3554
Lindow S, Brandl M (2003) Microbiology of the phyllosphere. Appl Environ Microbiol 69:
1875–1883
Linnæus C (1754) Genera plantarum, 5th edn
Loss SR, Will T, Loss SS, Marra PP (2014) Bird–building collisions in the United States: estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. Condor: Ornithol Appl 116:8–23 Marra PP, Dove CJ, Dolbeer RA, Dahlan N, Heacker M, Whatton J, Diggs N, France C, Henkes G (2009) Migratory Canada geese cause crash of US Airways Flight 1549. Front Ecol Environ 7:297–301
Martin GR (2011) Understanding bird collisions with man-made objects: a sensory ecology approach.

Ibis 153:239–254
Mateos-Rodrı´guez M, Liechti F (2012) How do diurnal long-distance migrants select flight altitude in relation to wind? Behav Ecol 23:403–409
3 Extending the Habitat Concept to the Airspace 67
567
McCracken GF (2003) Estimates of population sizes in summer colonies of Brazilian free-tailed bats (Tadarida brasiliensis). Monitoring trends in bat populations of the US and territories:
problems and prospects. In: O’Shea TJ, Bogan MA (eds) US geological survey, biological resources discipline, information and technology report, USGS/BRD/ITR-2003-003, 21–30 McCracken GF, Gillam EH, Westbrook JK, Lee Y, Jensen ML, Balsley BB (2008) Brazilian freetailed bats (Tadarida brasiliensis: Molossidae, Chiroptera) at high altitude: links to migratory insect populations. Integr Comp Biol 48:107–118
Mehlman DW, Mabey SE, Ewert DN, Duncan C, Abel B, Cimprich DA, Sutter RD, Woodrey MS (2005) Conserving stopover sites for forest-dwelling migratory landbirds. Auk 122:1281–1290 Meola M, Lazzaro A, Zeyer J (2015) Bacterial composition and survival on Sahara dust particles transported to the European Alps. Front Microbiol 6:1454 Mills AM (1986) The influence of moonlight on the behavior of goatsuckers (Caprimulgidae).

Auk 103:370–378
Morrison ML, Marcot BG, Mannan RW (2006) Wildlife-habitat relationships: concepts and applications, 3rd edn. Island Press, Washington, DC
Morton ES (1975) Ecological sources of selection on avian sounds. Am Nat 109:17–34 Nelson DA, Marler P (1990) The perception of birdsong and an ecological concept of signal space.

In: Stebbins WC, Berkley MA (eds) Comparative perception, Complex signals, vol 2. Wiley, New York, pp 443–478
O’Neal BJ, Stafford JD, Larkin RP (2010) Waterfowl on weather radar: applying ground-truth to classify and quantify bird movements. J Field Ornithol 81:71–82 Odum EP (1959) Fundamentals of ecology, 2nd edn. W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia Park H, Ryzhkov AV, Zrnic DS, Kim K-E (2009) The hydrometeor classification algorithm for the polarimetric WSR-88D: description and application to an MCS. Weather Forecast 24:730–748 Pennisi LA, Holland SM, Stein TV (2004) Achieving bat conservation through tourism. J Ecotour 3:195–207
Pennycuick CJ (1998) Field observations of thermals and thermal streets, and the theory of crosscountry soaring flight. J Avian Biol 29:33–43 Popa-Lisseanu AG, Delgado-Huertas A, Forero MG, Rodrı´guez A, Arlettaz R, Iba´nˇez C (2007) Bats’ conquest of a formidable foraging niche: the myriads of nocturnally migrating songbirds.

PLoS One 2. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000205 Razgour O, Korine C, Saltz D (2011) Does interspecific competition drive patterns of habitat use in desert bat communities? Oecologia 167:493–502
Robertson BA, Hutto RL (2006) A framework for understanding ecological traps and an evaluation of the existing evidence. Ecology 87:1075–1085 Robinson WDBM, Bisson IA, Shamoun-Baranes J, Thorup K, Diehl RH, Kunz TH, Mabey SE, Winkler DW (2009) Integrating concepts and technologies at the frontiers of bird migration.

Front Ecol Environ 8:354–361
Sachs G (2016) In-flight measurement of upwind dynamic soaring in albatrosses. Prog Oceanogr. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2016.01.003
Sattler B, Puxbaum H, Psenner R (2001) Bacterial growth in supercooled cloud droplets.

Geophys Res Lett 28:239–242
Schlaepfer MA, Runge MC, Sherman PW (2002) Ecological and evolutionary traps. Trends Ecol Evol 17:474–480
Scott JA (1972) Mating of butterflies. J Res Lepid 11:99–127 Shamoun-Baranes J, Bouten W, Buurma L, Defusco RP, Dekker A, Sierdsema H, Sluiter F, van Belle J, van Gasteren H, van Loon E (2008) Avian information systems: developing web-based bird avoidance models. Ecol Soc 13:38
Shields WM, Bildstein KL (1979) Birds versus bats: behavioral interactions at a localized food source. Ecology 60:468–474
Shipley JR, Kelly JF, Frick WF (2017) Toward integrating citizen science and radar data for migrant bird conservation. Remote Sens Ecol Conserv. https://doi.org/10.1002/rse2.62 68 R.H. Diehl et al.
568
Sinclair K, DeGeorge E (2016) Wind energy industry eagle detection and deterrents: research gaps and solutions workshop summary report. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, Technical report NREL/TP-5000-65735
Southwood TRE (1977) Habitat, the templet for Ecological strategies? J Anim Ecol 46:337–365 Sporer MK, Dwyer JF, Gerber BD, Harness RE, Pandey AK (2013) Marking power lines to reduce avian collision near the Audubon National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota. Wildl Soc Bull. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.329
Stiles FG (1982) Aggressive and courtship displays of the male Anna’s hummingbird. Condor 84:
208–225
Sullivan R (1981) Insect swarming and mating. Fla Entomol 64:44–65 Sweeney BW, Vannote RL (1982) Population synchrony in mayflies: a predation satiation hypothesis. Evolution 36:810–821 Vaı¨tilingom M, Attard E, Gaiani N, Sancelme M, Deguillaume L, Flossmann AI, Amato P, Delort AM (2012) Long-term features of cloud microbiology at the puy de Doˆme (France).

Atmos Environ 56:88–100
Van Doren BM, Horton KG, Dokter AM, Klinck H, Elbin SB, Farnsworth A (2017) High-intensity urban light installation dramatically alters nocturnal bird migration. PNAS 114:11175–11180 Wallace P (2007) The nature of habitat. NZ J Environ Law 11:211–240 Westbrook JK (2008) Noctuid migration in Texas within the nocturnal aeroecological boundary layer. Integr Comp Biol 48:99–106
Westbrook JK, Isard SA (1999) Atmospheric scales of biotic dispersal. Agric For Meteorol 97:
263–274
Wilkins KT (1989) Tadarida brasiliensis. In: Best TL, Anderson S (eds) Mammalian species, no 331. American Society of Mammalogists, pp 1–10
Wink M, Ristow D (2000) Biology and molecular genetics of Eleonora’s falcon (Falco eleonorae), a colonial raptor of Mediterranean Islands. In: Chancellor, Meyburg (eds) Raptors at risk.

Hancock House, Blaine, pp 653–668
Womack AM, Bohannan BJM, Green JL (2010) Biodiversity and biogeography of the atmosphere.

Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 365:3645–3653
Wright GA, Schiestl FP (2009) The evolution of floral scent: the influence of olfactory learning by insect pollinators on the honest signaling of floral rewards. Funct Ecol 23:841–851 Yang LH, Bastow JL, Spence KO, Wright AN (2008) What can we learn from resource pulses.

Ecology 89:621–634
3 Extending the Habitat Concept to the Airspace 69
569

CHAPTER
6 K. Shawn Smallwood
Habitat Model Types and Analysis and metapopulations (sensu Hanski and Gilpin 1997). These response units are measured on geographic areas that encompass at least several home ranges to regions (Fig. 6.1). Many habitat models include the term N to represent number of individuals, D to represent density, or some other term representing number or spatial intensity in the environment.

The terms N and D are explicitly represented in
some habitat models (e.g., Table 6.1, Equations 6.1,

6.5,6.11,6.12,6.13) and are needed for frequency
counts and ratios used in the other models. Therefore, habitat analysis is scale-dependent because N and D are scale-dependent (Verner 1981; Blackburn
and Gaston 1996; Smallwood and Schonewald
1996). Furthermore, these models do not specify
which demographic unit is being represented by N or
D, nor the contexts of demography, season, interannual variability, or condition of the landscape, all of which can affect N or D (Cyr 1997; Smallwood in
press).

Habitat models using numerical comparisons have
been reviewed already (e.g., Morrison et al. 1998).

Van Horne (1983) pointed out that density is a misleading indicator of habitat quality, mainly because density estimates are frequently too narrow in their
representation of a population's success. According to
Van Horne (1983), habitat studies are often spatially
and temporally inadequate for including areas occupied during all seasons, nor do they include the full Habitat analysis typically involves either a comparison of used versus not used environmental elements or a test for disproportionate use of environmental
elements from a measured set of available environmental elements. This chapter will focus on the latter approach (Table 6.1). The me~sure of use can include numerical spatial patterns (distributions) based on an individual's locations or on collections of individuals (Fig. 6.1). Using estimates of density or the number of individuals to perform habitat analysis
also involves the use of pattern analysis, because
density and spatial distribution are interlinked (Taylor 1961; Taylor et al. 1978). If organisms were patterned uniformly or randomly across a landscape or region, then habitat analysis would not be informative. The species would be considered as simply ubiquitous. However, species do not distribute themselves this way. Numbers vary spatially, and implicit in
most habitat models is the assumption that numerical peaks coincide with locations where habitat is of the highest quality (but see Van Home 1983 for
warnings against this assumption).

Using densities or numbers of individuals for habitat analysis, the measurement units for the response side of the analysis can range in demographic organization from subpopulations and populations to megapopulations (sensu Garshelis and Visser 1997)
83 570
TABLE 6.1.

Habitat models based on numbers or densities
Explanation
Dj and Dj are densities at sites i and j
Equation Number and Model Name
Measures of effect, no P-vaJue

6.1. Edge index
(Helle and Jarvinen 1986)
s "
=-1-
Pj

6.2. Index of selection
(Paloheimo 1979)
fj is the percentage of the ith element used,
and Pi is the percentage available in the
measured set
E=~
'i+p/

6.3. Index of electivity (Ivlev 1961'
Jacobs 1974; Gordon 1989)

6.4. Usage-availability rank
difference (Johnson 1980)
tij = rank ri- rank Pi
Hypothesis tests with P-values

6.5. Isodar Theory of habitat selection
(Morris 1990)
in the ith habitat, a; = maximum fitness,
b; = per capita reduction in fitness

6.6. X2 test with Bonferoni Z test
(Pearson 1900; Neu et al. 1974)
0 = observed, and E = Pi * N = expected
number of observations

6.7. Log-likelihood ratio criterion
(Fisher 1924, 1950; Everitt 1977)

6.8. Measure of aggregation
(David and Moore 1954;
Pielou 1977)
Xi = number of occurrences in ith element;
x~ = x = mean of occurrences among n elements
O
Mi=E

6.9. Ecological order
(Smallwood 1993)
M i = the number observed as a multiple of
the number expected in the ith element

6.10. Negentropy (Rsher 1924;
Shannon and Weaver 1949;
Rothstein 1951; Phipps 1981)
Use of information; use of the measured set
of choices; deviation from uniform association
indicates negative entropy
h h
D=bo+LbIXI+ Lb;;Xt
i i
h h
+~~b.XX ,L",L"I] I J
i j

6.11. Surface regression model
(Rotenberry 1986)
Xi = the ith habitat, h is the number of habitat
variables, and bs are fitted coefficients

6.12. Correlation (Wiens and
Rotenberry 1981)
d= ah, In a strip transect, hi is the ith habitat
attribute expressed as a continuous variable,
e.g., percent cover
In{E(DI/)} = [30 +In(AI/
+[31(51/)+ L[3;Pl/k

6.13. Patch shape/Type (Otis 1998) Aij = area of the jth patch in the ith environmental element; S = shape, which is a
function of the patch perimeter and its area;
p = patch perimeter
571

6. Habitat Models Based on Numerical Comparisons 85
Intra-population
numerical comparison
(locations of individuals)
Regional numbers
(multiple popnlations)
Individoallocations
in home range
~
I. ~~;rc7
.~ i
~ Atriplex ..
.spp.

Bromos
spp.

Figure 6..1. Numerical data in habitat models can include individual locations within a home range or any number of individuals with or without reference to a demographic unit. The grain of the measured set of environmental elements typically grades from micro- to macro-habitat representation as the numerical data grades from individual locations to regional in scope.

Mea,urernenl' Pattern of abundanee X Ineldenee map-.. Habitat a"oct.tlon and eornpar!,on (aeleellon. preferenee)
Figure 6.2. The effectiveness of numerically based habitat models and the measurements of use and availability ultimately depend on the attributes of the field studies and the world-views of the analyst. which have primacy over the actual measurements of use and availability.
density. Figure 6.2 depicts a hierarchical framework
for discussing habitat analysis, first considering worldviews (paradigms), then attributes of study and interpretive design, and finally the measurements and comparisons, the results and interpretation of which depend on world-views, and study and interpretive design. I intend to demonstrate that the available habitat models are inadequate by themselves for characterizing
habitat of animal species; these models are no substitute for long-term research experience, although their predictions can be used as testable hypotheses. Just as habitat analysts need operational terms with which to
work (Morrison and Hall, Chapter 2), they also need a
larger framework with which to interpret applications
of the habitat models based on numerical comparisons.

The Theoretical Null Pattern
The significance of a measured numerical pattern (spatial distribution) to habitat use is decided largely by its comparison to a theoretical null pattern. Measured numerical patterns can be uniform, random, aggregated, or regular, and null patterns can be uniform, random,
or both (Fig. 6.3). Deviation of a measured pattern
from the null pattern is assumed to be caused by a relationship between the species and the energy or material resources composing the environmental elements (Smallwood 1993 ). The theoretical foundations of the
null pattern are therefore critical for interpreting the association. The null pattern in thermodynamics is uniformity, which connotes the equilibrium cold state, or range of numerical responses to environmental
changes, nor do they address the social interactions
leading to occupation of both source and sink areas.

Vickery et al. {1992) found density to be a poor predictor of nest success among three species of passerine bird species, although they did not account for the effect their variable plot sizes had on density {Smallwood 1999). Nevertheless, unburdened by any possible effect of variable plot sizes on density, Morris {1989) found mean litter size of the white-footed
mouse {Peromyscus leucopus) to decline with increasing density. Alldredge et al. {1998) discussed faulty assumptions underlying various habitat models, such as the assumption that the sample of animals is random
{rather than belonging or not belonging to a population), that each observation is independent of the next, that each animal's habitat selection was independent
of others in the sample, that the availability of environmental elements is known rather than estimated, that availability is constant over the period of the
study {rather than changing seasonally or for other
reasons), and that detectability of animals is constant among the environmental elements sampled. Smallwood {1993) began a discussion on the theoretical foundations of these models, focusing on the role of
thermodynamics in resource selection models.

In this chapter, I will frame habitat analysis within
the larger context of world-views on how and why animals distribute themselves and how and why analysts apply experimental design principles and statistical
tests to habitat studies based on relative number or
572
86 PREDICTING SPECIES OCCURRENCES
Theoretical continuum
Regular +-~;:::

Figure 6.3. Random patterns occur somewhere along a gradient ranging from uniformity (regularity) to aggregation, thereby reducing the distance that can be measured between an observed aggregated pattern and the null pattern of randomness. lack of energy relationships {Hutchinson 1953). The
null pattern in information theory is also uniformity,
which connotes no use of the available information
{Shannon and Weaver 1949; Kullback 1959; Phipps
1981). Uniformity is the state of maximum entropy in
both thermodynamics and information theory. The
null pattern in ecology is randomness, which connotes
lack of influence from the locations of other individuals {Fisher 1950; Taylor 1961). The null pattern chosen by the habitat analyst identifies the world-view of the analyst regarding how and why nature is organized,
and it determines the set of alternative results.

Habitat analysts usually explicitly or implicitly assume that spatial distributions are determined by some form of energy relationship{s) between the organisms and their environment {Hall et al. 1997b; Morrison et al. 1998). Although rarely discussed explicitly, many ecologists hold the world-view that biological processes are governed ultimately by the laws of thermodynamics {Hutchinson 1953). The measures
of effect used in Equations 6.6-6.10 are derived from
these laws, and all the other models in Table 6.1 {except Equation. 6.5) are theoretically and mathematically related to Equations 6.6-6.10 {Smallwood 1993). Many aspects of habitat are assumed to be energy-related, and the goals of wildlife are usually assumed to be resource acquisition and total fitness {Southwood 1977; Rosenzweig 1985; Wiens 1989b,c),
which are energy-related and energy-dependent, respectively. Habitat elements other than energy are recognized as important, such as water, nutrients, refugia, travel corridors, nest sites, and so on. However, even the response variable, density, has its conceptual origins in the physical sciences and is energydependent. High-quality habitat is said to have greater levels of energy available {Hall et al. 1997b).

However, if the laws of thermodynamics largely govern the spatial distributions of animals, then assuming randomness as the null pattern is not only inappropriate on theoretical grounds but also reduces the analyst's capacity to recognize meaningful aggregations and selection of environmental elements {Smallwood 1993).

Random patterns occur somewhere along a gradient
that ranges from uniformity {regularity) to aggregation {Fig. 6.3). This gradient is represented by probability values of the X2 distribution, the lower-tail values of which correspond with uniformity and increasingly
upper-tail values grading through randomness and
eventually aggregated patterns. The distance that can be measured between an observed aggregated pattern and
the null pattern of randomness is less than between the aggregated pattern and the null pattern of uniformity.

Therefore, assuming the null pattern is random instead
of uniform washes out some of the potential significance that can be attributed to an observed aggregated pattern. The world-view of the analyst is at least implicitly expressed by the types of habitat model and statistical test used, because these models and tests are structured either on the assumption that the null pattern is uniform {e.g., X2 tests} or random {e.g., ANOVA tests).

Only aggregated patterns of animals can lead to inferences about habitat use. Purely uniform or random patterns of use will fail to reveal any selection of environmental elements from a measured set because no disproportional patterns will be evident {Fig. 6.4). A
regular pattern of distribution might indicate that the study area included territories of individuals numbering fewer than occurred in the larger population {Fig.

6.5}. In other words, the study area was smaller than
the area occupied by the population, which often
arranges itself into regularly spaced home ranges or
territories held by its members. Similarly, random patterns have been observed when progeny {of insects} dispersed passively in air or water {Taylor et al. 1978}, or when occurrence was scarce or at the edge of a
larger aggregation {Fig. 6.5}.

Recognizing whether the spatial pattern is uniform,
random, aggregated, or regular depends on both the
573

6. Habitat Models Based o Numerical Comparisons 87
cies of each of the following four types of aggregation:
resource, demographic, early-stage, and constrained.

Individuals may aggregate around a centralized or
patchy resource, forming a resource aggregation.

Competition for a limited resource can force some animals to live on the fringe of the resource patch, or even to spillover into ecological sinks. Such an aggregation can extend beyond the boundary of the resource patch just because off-patch individuals get sufficient access to the resource or because those exploiting the resource generate progeny that disperse
~ Incidence measured set of environmental
: map elements, from which habitat
, Inferences are made
Compared to Patterns of Abundance:

Uniform Cold state with ooeoergy
relationships
or
Regular Tenitoria! spacing maximizes
use of available resources (scale
of observation likely too small)
Location of eacb individual does n
influence locations of oth.,. (",al,
of observation i;kely too small)
~
: Aggregated Presumed habitat selection that
indicates preference or avoidance due to:

Resources
Social purposes
Early-stage invasion of oew space
Constraints of babitat fragmentation
Figure 6.4. To interpret meaningful associations, patterns of distribution are compared to a map of the measured incidence of environmental elements, composing a measured set. The meaning of an association ultimately depends on the worldview of the analyst and on the theoretical foundations of the statistical test or measure of effect being used. It also depends on the type of aggregations that are being compared to the measured set of available environmental elements.

Random
Regular
R = 1.27
Density.

66.7-ha annual grassland
north of Fresno, California
...
..,
Random pattern
R = 0.75, z = -1.24
Density = 2.2/ha
..
\-a
t
Aggregated pattern
R = 0.85, z = -4.89
Density = 4.7/ha
spatial scale of observation and knowledge of the
species' demographic organization. Examining the
spatial relations of individuals from a portion of a
population can mislead an analyst into thinking the
pattern of distribution is random or uniform, when it
is more likely regular at the scale appropriate for
measuring the population and aggregated at the regional scale. For example, prairie dog (Cynomys spp.) burrows occur fairly regularly within colonies (Tileston and Lechleitner 1966), which are themselves aggregations in the region (Koford 1958). Of course, information about the spatial distribution is lost when transforming the locations of individuals into numerical estimates and then to densities. Comparing N or D for habitat analysis cannot lead to conclusions about
demographic organization unless the spatial areas are
included in the comparison (Smallwood 1999).
"'8'
~...
..

N
~
I..,.
---
..
.
j "
N Streambed R = Index of aggregation
D Study area boundary z = standard normal deviate
.Ground squirrel burrow system
400 0 400 Meters
Figure 6.5. The size and position of study areas inform of different spatial patterns among burrow systems of California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyl). Using the pacing method for mapping burrow systems of pocket gophers (Smallwood and Erickson 1995), I mapped the approximate centers of ground squirrel burrow systems on 66.7 hectares of annual grassland in the low-elevation foothills north of Fresno, California, during April and May 2000. A nearest-neighbor-distance method (Clark and Evans 1954) indicated that ground squirrel burrow systems were regularly distributed within a larger aggregation and randomly distributed at the edge of the aggregation. The larger aggregation was only recognizable within the boundary of the largest (66.6 hectares) study area. The density of burrow systems was also greater within the aggregation compared to the edge.

Types of Aggregation
Aggregations can form for several reasons (Fig. 6.6),
and each of these reasons poses a unique implication
for interpreting the habitat association. These reasons bear on the choice of the theoretical null pattern and
the habitat model. It will be important for wildlife biologists to determine the relative occurrence frequenpattern , z = 3.32
= 13.1/ba
574
88 PREDICTING SPECIES OCCURRENCES
Boundary of resource or
high-quality habitat patch
A
which was recently discovered or became available to
the species. An invasion of pocket gophers (Thomomys spp.) into new stands of alfalfa (Smallwood and Geng 1997) is a good example. Early-stage aggregations are combined resource and demographic aggregations but temporarily give different results when analyzing habitat selection based on use and availability methods. Such aggregations provide the best opportunity to observe preference of the available environmental elements because they are relatively free of demographic constraints (e.g., competition and territoriality). However, as numbers increase due to continued immigration, social mechanisms such as territoriality force later arrivals into less-preferred locations, thereby affecting our perception of use (Fig. 6.7). An
example of early-stage aggregations can be found in
"Intrapopulation Numbers," later in this chapter.

Constrained aggregations result from habitat fragmentation (sensu Wilcox and Murphy 1985) or the division of previously contiguous habitat patches (Addicott et al. 1987). They may also result from intolerable environmental conditions occurring naturally outside the aggregation, including the occurrence of
competitors or predators (Hutchinson 1953; Koford
1958). Patches of low-quality habitat are occupied by
constrained aggregations because the species is left
with no other place to go (du Toit 1995). Low-quality
habitat can appear to be high-quality habitat when
loss of habitat constrains individuals to fragmented
habitat patches or to peripheral habitat areas. Habitat analysis using constrained aggregations can be misleading due to packing of individuals into the habitat fragment or the inclusion of the intolerable areas in
the measured set of environmental elements. Unfortunately, many special-status rare species are found only in fragmented habitat, or in habitat at the boundary of their tolerable conditions (e.g., Scott et al. 1986), so their constrained aggregations should not be used
alone to interpret habitat associations. For example,
giant garter snakes (Thamnophis gigas, federally
endangered) occur in marshes and adjacent irrigation
canals where marshes in the Central Valley of California have not been converted entirely to agricultural fields and houses. The study of historical data and taxonomically and functionally similar species might help investigators interpret habitat associations for specialIndividual animals or home ranges
.~\
~
Resource
aggregation
Constrained
or Resollrce
aggregation
Figure 6.6. The types of aggregations observed largely determine the pattern of distribution and the association with the measured set of environmental elements. Demographic, resource patchiness, habitat fragmentation, and early-stage filling of ecological space can affect our perception of use and availability.
outward, beyond the patch. In either case, and in the
case of other possible explanations, the number of individuals associated with the resource-based aggregation need not be bound within the resource patch.

Individuals also aggregate with conspecifics to improve fitness through reproduction, rearing of young, and group cooperation such as foraging and predator
avoidance. They may choose places to live based on
the momentum of the congregation rather than the energetic or nutrient accessibility of the habitat patch (Alatalo et al. 1985). Demographic aggregations may
have spatial limits that are imposed by behaviors or by uncertainties of habitat quality outside the aggregation (Stamps 1991). Demographic aggregations conceivably could be confined to space that is smaller in extent than the resource patch (Taylor and Taylor
1979). Social constraints could therefore limit our observed use of an environmental element (resource) to less than that expected based on its availability. Dasgupta and Alldredge (1998) devised a behavioral dependency parameter for use with X2 tests, involving situations where multiple individuals are observed together. However, aggregations can occur without individuals being observed together, per se (e.g., Puma concolor, Smallwood 1997), but which may have
formed to serve social and demographic needs nevertheless (Lloyd 1967).

An early-stage aggregation can also form while immigrants invade previously unoccupied habitat, which could have been cleared of former occupants, or
575

6. Habitat Models Based on Numerical Comparisons 89
5 4
Obs+ Exp
gophers along
field edge 3
2 1
0 -I O I 2
log Gopher density
Figure 6.7. The relationship between selection for the field edge and pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) density across alfalfa fields (Medicago sativa). The observed value divided by the expected value of 1.0 indicates the edge was used in proportion to its availability. status rare species. For example, habitat descriptions
of 1: sirtalis, 1: couchi, and 1: elegans might provide insight into the historical habitat of T. gigas.

The prevailing view among those using the models
in Table 6.1 appears to be that resource aggregations
result in our measurements of disproportionate use of
environmental elements. For example, Rotenberry et
al. (Chapter 22) present a habitat selection model for
which they assume that most wildlife observations are
made where these animals want to be-where they derive some benefit from resources. However, the models in Table 6.1, and that of Rotenberry et al., can yield
the same measures of disproportionate use when applied to aggregations that were forced by habitat fragmentation or the need to congregate. Applied to 1:
gigas, these models will indicate that 1: gigas selects irrigation canals, probably because the landscape matrix is annual field crops where the snake cannot live. The
models in Table 6.1 will not discriminate among aggregations influenced by various disparate factors, so they cannot be relied upon to measure habitat quality.
ered a range in size of study areas in which the number of individuals might be given some meaning in terms of demographic organization {Smallwood
1999). As I had also found for mammalian carnivora
{Smallwood 1999), nearly half the numerical estimates
of northern goshawk {Accipiter gentilis) increased
proportionally with increases in the sizes of their corresponding study areas {scale domain A, Fig. 6.8).